CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mars 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s649A0994 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5038DA2B { width:27.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s60AA8033 { font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)10 [1] Leas contre Estonie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 59577/08, arrêt du 6 mars 2012, définitif le 6 juin 2012)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2013)24E ) [2]   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -                  de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -                  de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)24E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. ACTION REPORT Leas v. Estonia Application No. 59577/08, Judgment of 6 March 2012     1)                    Case description :   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that the criminal proceedings No. 1-06-5729 directed against him in 2005-2008 had been unfair as he had not been given access to a covert surveillance file on him which had led to the charges being brought against him and, subsequently, to his conviction. The Court did not consider that the procedure employed to determine the issue of disclosure of evidence complied with the requirements to provide adversarial proceedings and equality of arms or incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused (violation of Article 6 § 1).   2)                    Individual measures :   Apart from payment of just satisfaction (EUR 5,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses, paid on 2 July 2012), on 19 November 2012 the Estonian Supreme Court has granted Johannes Leas’ request to review (re-examine) the criminal proceedings No. 1-06-5729 that had been directed against him.   The grounds for the initiation of the review proceedings were related to the fact that the European Court of Human Rights satisfied Johannes Leas’ (hereinafter the “applicant”) individual application on 5 March 2012 and found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Granting the request to review a case means according to §   366   (1) sub-clause   7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Supreme Court found that the violation established by the Strasbourg Court may have affected the resolution of the criminal matter and it could not be eliminated or damage caused thereby could not be compensated in a manner other than by review of the criminal case.   In the course of the review proceedings the Supreme Court will decide on the resumption of the proceedings in the applicant’s criminal matter No. 1-06-5729. According to § 373 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a request for review is justified, the Supreme Court annuls the contested court decision by a judgment and sends the criminal matter for a new hearing by the court which made the annulled decision or to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for a new pre-trial proceeding to be conducted. If there is no need to ascertain new facts in the criminal matter subject to review, the Supreme Court itself may make a new judgment after the review of the criminal matter (without aggravating the situation of the convicted offender). The Supreme Court will make its decision within the following months.   3)                    General measures :   As the applicant’s case would appear to be sui generis and unlikely there are similar cases, there is, in the view of the Government, no need for specific legislative or regulatory action. Should, nevertheless, such a case arise reference to the Court judgment which is now part of Estonian law would be sufficient guidance for the judicial and administrative authorities.   For the purposes of publication and dissemination, the judgment of the Court was translated into Estonian and published on the web-site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ( http://www.vm.ee/?q=taxonomy/term/229 ) and widely disseminated, including to the authorities directly concerned.   4)                    Conclusions of the respondent State :   Estonia has paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment in due time.   The applicant had and he used the right to request the review of his criminal proceedings, which request the Supreme Court has granted. As the request for review was granted on 19   November 2012 the outcome of the Supreme Court review proceedings is not yet known. But the fact itself that the review proceedings have been initiated proves that the applicant had an effective and accessible individual measure which is in accordance with the Committee of Ministers Recommendation No (2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.   Estonia finds that the judgment is implemented properly and fully and asks to close the examination of the case.   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des   Ministres le 7 mars 2013 lors de la 1164e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement