CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 12 avril 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sA85A9A3D { font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFCD7D858 { margin-left:1.65pt; border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A08084E { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CCA2433 { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AB3D1C6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s9B8DC3B3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCE97D62E { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sC18575F0 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sE2D7191C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:140pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-140pt; font-size:10pt } .sFFAC2F38 { height:30pt } .sA6524EF { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E7C0AC9 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sAAECE211 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } Resolution ResDH(2006)15 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   in 13 cases against the Slovak Republic (see appendix)   relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings and the right to an effective remedy   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 April 2006, at the 960th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the 13 cases details of which appear in the appendix to this resolution, transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once they had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the cases originated in applications against the Slovak Republic (see details in the appendix) lodged with either the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 or the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 and that the European Court of Human Rights declared admissible the applicants' complaints concerning the excessive length of certain civil proceedings rights and, in the cases of Bzdúšek, E.O. and V.P., Macková and Z.M. and K.P., also the complaints concerning the lack of an effective remedy to enforce the right to a trial within a reasonable time;   Recalling that the European Court subsequently held in all these cases that there had been violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings and that, in the cases of Bzdúšek, E.O. and V.P., Macková and Z.M. and K.P., there had also been violations of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective domestic remedy, and awarded the applicants or their heirs sums as just satisfaction in all these cases except the cases of Švolík and Bzdúšek (see appendix);   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the European Court’s judgments, having regard to Slovak Republic's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;   Having satisfied itself that the government of the Slovak Republic paid the applicants or their heirs the sums awarded by the European Court as just satisfaction (see details in the appendix);   Whereas the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as those found in these cases, these measures being in particular presented in Resolution ResDH(2005)67 (in particular amendment of 2001 to the Constitution which provides a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties; adoption of Act No. 501/2001 which reduces the number of cases in which second-instance courts are competent at first instance and aims to accelerate the gathering of evidence; adoption of Act No. 385/2000 which regulates the civil and disciplinary liability of judges for unjustified delays in their cases);   Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of the Slovak Republic, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.     Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)15   Details of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicants or to their heirs     Cases Date of judgment Final on Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses     Payment on Bzdúšek Ján, Bzdúšek Tomáš and Bzdúšek Svetozár 48817/99 21/06/2005 21/09/2005 - - - Csepyová Alžbeta 67199/01 24/02/2004 24/05/2004 3   500 euros* 750 euros* 06/08/2004 E.O. and V.P. 56193/00 and 57581/00 27/04/2004 10/11/2004 3   200 euros* to the first applicant and 3   000 euros to the second applicant 2   000 euros* (global sum) 03/02/2005 Fabišík Jan 51204/99 22/03/2005 22/06/2005   4   000 euros* 200 euros* 22/09/2005 Heger Marián 62194/00 17/05/2005 12/10/2005 2   800 euros* 100 euros* 13/01/2006 applicant waived interest in view of small amount Horváthová Mária 74456/01 17/05/2005 12/10/2005   4   000 euros* to the applicant’s heirs 500 euros* to the applicant’s heirs 05/12/2005 Kopecká Gabriela 69012/01 31/05/2005 31/08/2005 6   000 euros* - 18/11/2005 Macková Zora 51543/99 29/03/2005 29/06/2005 4   500 euros* 500 euros* 10/10/2005 applicant waived interest in view of small amount Mažgútová Helena 65998/01 17/05/2005 17/08/2005   4   000 euros* - 14/11/2005 Piskura František 65567/01 27/05/2003 24/09/2003 3   700 euros* 300 euros* 10/09/2003 Švolík Jozef 51545/99 15/02/2005 15/05/2005   - - - Vargová Elfrída 52555/99 15/02/2005 15/05/2005 4   000 euros* 300 euros* 15/08/2005 Z.M. and K.P. 50232/99 17/05/2005 17/08/2005 4   000 euros* to each applicant 500 euros* (global sum) 11/11/2005     * To be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of settlement.