CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 10 juillet 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA64C57B1 { font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } .s5292FFFE { width:21.51pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } 1176e réunion – 10 juillet 2013   Annexe 9 (Point H46-1)   Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)140 Cinq affaires contre République tchèque Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Kohlhofer and Minarik, Requête n o 32921/03, arrêt du 15 octobre 2009, définitif le 1er mars 2010 Minarik, Requête n o 46677/06, arrêt du 10 février 2011, définitif le 10 mai 2011 Solaris s.r.o et autres, Requête n o 8992/07, arrêt du 13 octobre 2011, définitif le 13 octobre 2011 Minarik et autres, Requête n o 10583/09, arrêt du 13 octobre 2011, définitif le 13 octobre 2011 Kohlhofer, Requête n o 22915/07, arrêt du 13 octobre 2011, définitif le 13 octobre 2011)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 10 juillet 2013, lors de la 1176e 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 les violations constatées   ;   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 le bilan d’action fourni 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)49 )   ;   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. Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in cases Nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05 – Kohlhofer and Minarik and No. 46677/06 – Minarik v. the Czech Republic (first group), and in cases Nos. 8992/07 – Solaris, s.r.o., and others, 10583/09 – Minarik and others and 22915/07 – Kohlhofer v. the Czech Republic (second group)   Action Report submitted by the Czech Government on 3 December 2012 (anglais seulement)   In its judgments delivered on 15 October 2009 and 10 February 2011, respectively, with regard to the first group of cases, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention stemming in particular from the limitation of the applicants’ access to a court that would assess the validity of general meetings and resolutions taken at those meetings with the aim of squeezing out minority shareholders, including the applicants, from several companies.   In its judgment of 13 October 2011, the Court has established in respect of the second group of cases a similar violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as in its previous judgments referred to above.   The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution with regard to the judgments. [1]     I.   INDIVIDUAL MEASURES   In all these cases, the transfer of property has been valid and final under Czech law for several years and this fact has been relied on in subsequent complex legal transactions. Therefore, any measures aimed at invalidation of the transfer of assets would imply a disproportionate interference with third persons’ rights acquired in good faith.   Taking this into account, the government believes that apart from due payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, introduction of other individual measures is unnecessary and would even be unreasonable in the present cases.     II.   GENERAL MEASURES   It should be noted that in the above-mentioned judgments, the Court did not explicitly state what the content of legislation or the approach of the domestic courts should have been in order to comply with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The government has been compelled by the Court to seek a solution that would strike a balance between the competing interests of the minority shareholders, other entities involved, and the broader public interest (in particular, the stability of commercial markets and trade and economic development), the legitimacy of which was acknowledged in the Court’s judgments.   Measures, described infra, which have been introduced, concern both the relevant legislation and to the case law of national courts.     A. AMENDMENT OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION   The violation of the Convention established by the Court originated, inter alia , from the domestic legislation. [2]   It should be clarified at the outset that the regulation of transfer of assets to the majority shareholder (which has been subject to the Court’s scrutiny in the judgments at hand) was erased from the Commercial Code in 2008 and moved to a newly introduced Act No. 125/2008 (the “Companies Transformations Act”). Admittedly, these new provisions were based on very similar principles as the former ones and did not entail changes that would significantly alter the position of minority shareholders, considered unsatisfactory in certain aspects by the Court found.   In 2011, the Ministry of Justice prepared an amendment of the relevant legislation, which became Act No.   355/2011 and entered into force on 1 January 2012 (the “Act”). The Act, inter alia , explicitly reflects the Kohlhofer and Minarik judgment and introduces measures intended to remedy the previous legislative shortcomings identified by the Court.   In particular, Section 131 (3) (c) of the Commercial Code, i.e. one of the provisions that were at the centre of the Court’s criticism, [3] has been abolished.   Furthermore, Sections 57(2) and (3) of the Companies Transformations Act [4] have been modified in order to provide for a possibility to continue the proceedings to set aside a decision on transformation of the company (such as transfer of assets to the majority shareholder) after the entry of the transformation into the Commercial Register. This applies on condition that a minority shareholder changes the object of his motion to seek a determination whether the transformation project (e.g. transfer of assets) or the decision approving it are contrary to the legislation or internal statutes of the company. [5]   Upon a court’s decision declaring an inconsistency of such transformation project or of the corresponding decision with legislation or the company’s internal statutes, the minority shareholders are entitled to claim damages or a just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.   Therefore, even after the entry of the transformation into the Commercial Register, minority shareholders will have access to court to contest the general meeting’s resolution that has deprived them of their shares. Despite not being able to achieve quashing of the resolution, the merits of their claims, in particular the question whether the resolution had been adopted in breach of law or the company’s internal statutes, will be heard and finally decided in adversarial proceedings before the court.   Such solution allows for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of the minority shareholders on the one hand and those of the majority shareholder, the company and the broader public interest on the other hand.     B. REFLECTION OF THE JUDGMENTS IN DOMESTIC CASE LAW   The principles expressed by the Court in the above judgments had found their reflection in the case law of Czech courts, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, already in 2011. [6] This fact illustrates that the Czech courts had not passively awaited legislative changes but instead have by their practice contributed to the introduction of the principles contained in the Court’s judgments into the Czech law.   III.   CONCLUSION   The Government of the Czech Republic concludes in respect of implementation of the judgments in Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic, Minarik v. the Czech Republic, Solaris, s.r.o. and others v. the Czech Republic, Minarik and others v. the Czech Republic and Kohlhofer v. the Czech Republic that all necessary measures of execution have been taken.   [1] The issue of payment of just satisfaction has been dealt with separately. [2] See, in particular, § 93 of the Kohlhofer and Minarik judgment: “The Court finds that the application of [Section] 131(3)(c) of the CC in the case constituted a limitation on the applicants’ access to court as it prevented them from having a court determination on merits of the legal issue at stake, namely whether the resolution had been adopted contrary to law.” [3] See Act No. 126/2008 which removed former Sections 220a to 220zb from the Commercial Code. [4] The original version of Section 57 corresponds to former Section 220h of the Commercial Code in the version relevant for the Kohlhofer and Minarik and Minarik judgments. [5] i.e. with a Memorandum or Deed of Association or Articles of Association (“společenská smlouva, zakla- datelská smlouva, zakladatelská listina, stanovy”). [6] The Constitutional Court’s findings of 3 March 2011, No. III. ÚS 2671/09, and of 21 March 2011, No. I. ÚS 1768/09, the Supreme Court’s resolution of 30 March 2011, No. 29 Cdo 1048/2008.