CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 21 mars 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ruiz-Mateos against Spain delivered on 23 June 1993 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against Spain lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 May 1987 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by six Spanish nationals, Mr José María, Mr Zoilo, Mr Rafael, Mr Isidoro, Mr Alfonso and Mrs María Dolores Ruiz-Mateos who complained, inter alia, that their actions for the restitution of their assets were not heard within a reasonable time and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court did not comply with the principle of equality of arms;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of Spain on 20 February 1992 and by the Commission on 21 February 1992;        Whereas in its judgment of 23 June 1993 the Court:        - held by twenty-two votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), as regards the length of the proceedings;        - held by eighteen votes to six that there had been a violation of that provision as regards the fairness of the proceedings conducted in this case in the Constitutional Court;        - dismissed unanimously the applicants' claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of Spain to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 23 June 1993, having regard to Spain's obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Spain gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Spain, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (94) 27   Information provided by the Government of Spain during the examination of the case of Ruiz-Mateos against Spain by the Committee of Ministers        The legislation at issue in the Ruiz-Mateos case, Act No. 7/1983 dated 29 June 1983 concerning the expropriation on the grounds of public utility and social interest of firms belonging to the RUMASA group, was unique and the Ruiz-Mateos case was, accordingly, an exceptional case.        The judgment of the Court has received the widest possible publicity in Spain, including extensive reports in mass media.        The violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), which resulted from excessive length of the domestic proceedings, has been remedied by the developments which have since taken place in Spain: as far as the situation before the Audiencia Provincial is concerned, this appears already from paragraph 48 of the Court's judgment; as regards the situation before the Constitutional Court, statistics show that the workload of this Court decreased considerably after 1986 as a result of the maturing of the Spanish democracy, a clearer legal situation, in particular as far as the distribution of competences within the new State of the Autonomous Regions (el nuevo Estado de las Autonomías) is concerned, and the adoption of the constitutional amendment (ley orgánica) 6/1988, of 9 June 1988, which allowed the Constitutional Court to reject inadmissible amparo appeals by means of a summary procedure.        In view of the unique character of the Ruiz-Mateos case, the violation of the same article which resulted from the fact that the applicants were not allowed to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court will also not reoccur.   In the unlikely event of a new case, comparable to that of the Ruiz-Mateos case, the Constitutional Court would be empowered by Article 96 of the Spanish Constitution to adopt a procedure complying with the requirements of the Convention as laid down in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Ruiz-Mateos case; considering the status of the Convention in Spanish law there is also every reason to believe that, in such a case, the Constitutional Court would adopt such a procedure.