CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 30 avril 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7A147DBF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-35.45pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sADEDA2F2 { width:32.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1B32BF6A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s569AF9F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s25DB3F80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sB83EDF5E { width:9.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)58 4 affaires contre République tchèque (Adamiček, Šurý, Tieze et Semeráková, Janyr et autres) Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 35836/05, arrêt du 12/10/2010, définitif le 12/01/2011 Requête n o 16299/10, arrêt du 13/10/2011, définitif le 13/01/2012 Requête n o 26908/09, arrêt du 13/10/2011, définitif le 13/01/2012 Requête n o 12579/06, arrêt du 13/10/2011, définitif le 13/01/2012)   (adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 30 avril 2013, lors de la 1169e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     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 que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu les arrêts définitifs, qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et la violation constatée   ;   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 à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné les bilans d’action fournis par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)332E )   ;   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 ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action report submitted in its consolidated version by the government on 14 March 2013 (anglais seulement)     In its judgment of 12 October 2010 in Adamíček, the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the declaration of inadmissibility of his constitutional appeal (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The judgment became final on 12   January 2011 according to Article 44 § 2 letter b) of the Convention.   In its three judgments of 13 October 2011 in Janyr and others, Tieze and Semeráková and Šurý, the Court found a similar violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The judgments became final on 13   January 2012 according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.   The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers about the indi ­ vidual and general measures concerning the execution of the judgments.   I.   individual measures   The government observed that the cases of the applicants had been considered on the merits by the courts of both the first and second instance and it does not seem that the violation of the Convention – which occurred before the Constitutional Court – affected the outcome of the various proceedings before ordinary courts.   Moreover, the alleged violations of the Convention which the applicants had intended to raise before the Constitutional Court were dismissed as inadmissible by the Court in its decisions of 9 December 2008 (applicant Adamíček), 21 September 2010 (applicants Janyr, Lučivňák and Záleský) and of 28   September 2010 (applicants Semeráková and Šurý) and in its judgment of 13 October 2011 (applicant Tieze).   Finally, the amounts awarded by the Court to five of the seven applicants (applicants Adamíček, Janyr, Lučivňák, Tieze and Šurý) have been duly paid. [1]   In view of the aforementioned, the government is convinced that there are no individual measures to adopt in the applicants’ cases.   Nonetheless, Mr Lučivňák and Mr Janyr have applied for the reopening of their proceedings before the Czech Constitutional Court in accordance with Section 119 of the Constitutional Court Act (CCA) as their constitutional appeal was directed against ordinary courts’ decisions given in criminal proceedings. [2] While Mr   Lučivňák’s request for reopening remains pending, the plenary of the Constitutional Court already decided to grant Mr Janyr’s request by its decision of 18 December 2012 reasoning, inter alia, that its initial decision declaring the applicant’s constitutional appeal inadmissible was contrary to the Court’s judgment.   II.   general measures   The Court’s judgments in the present cases were translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (portal.justice.cz) and they were also discussed at meetings of the plenary of the Constitutional Court held after the pronouncement of the judgments.   As stated in its Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)68 concerning the execution of the Court’s judgment in the Drahorád and Drahorádová, Mourek, Hoření, Ješina and Glaser v. the Czech Republic cases, following earlier similar cases, the Czech authorities adopted a number of measures to prevent new violations, namely:   a)       the plenary of the Constitutional Court changed its practice in 2003 (communication published in the Official Journal no. 32/2003 of 3 February 2003); b)       Parliament adopted Act No. 83/2004 (which entered into force on 1 April 2004) which amended the CCA.   Furthermore, in its judgment No. Pl. ÚS 29/11 of 21 February 2012, the Czech Constitutional Court repealed (with effect from 1 January 2013) as unconstitutional Section 237 §   1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) according to which an appeal on points of law is admissible if the decision of the court of appeal has to be regarded as dealing with a question of crucial legal importance. The Constitutional Court held, among other things, that the contested provision did not define clearly the situations where an appeal on points of law was admissible.   In the meantime, the government presented a bill amending the CCP and the CCA, which was adopted by Parliament on 24 October 2012 and became Act No. 404/2012. This Act, which entered into force on 1   January 2013, defines more clearly the situations where an appeal on points of law should be deemed admissible. Moreover – and this is of crucial importance for the execution of the present judgments – this Act changes the wording of Section 75 § 1 of the CCA so that before lodging their constitutional appeals the litigants will have to exhaust all remedies afforded by law for the protection of their rights, including (and not “with the exception of” as this provision currently reads) those whose admissibility depends on the discretion of the competent authorities. Accordingly, the applicants in every case (not only in civil, but also in criminal proceedings) will have to lodge an appeal on points of law first. Thus, their following constitutional appeals should not be declared inadmissible as lodged out of time if lodged within two month time limit running from the delivery of the decision of the Supreme Court on the appeal on points of law.   III.   conclusion   The Government of the Czech Republic concluded that with respect to implementation of the judgments in Adamíček, Janyr and Others, Tieze and Semeráková and Šurý v. the Czech Republic, all the necessary measures of execution have been taken.   [1] The issue of payment of just satisfaction is dealt with separately. [2] The possibility to ask for reopening exists in criminal matters and could have been availed of also by applicant Záleský. In his case, the statutory time limit of six months after the finality of the Strasbourg Court judgment for doing so has lapsed.