CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 décembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2C6872E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s377DE30A { margin-left:29.67pt; padding-left:24.33pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sCAB42500 { margin-left:33pt; padding-left:21pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution ResDH(2006)73 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Steck-Risch and others against Liechtenstein   (Application No. 63151/00, judgment of 19 May 2005, final on 19 August 2005)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which sets forth the Committee's duty to supervise the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee on 19   August   2005;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the breach of the principle of equality of arms in administrative court proceedings as local authorities' comments were not communicated to the applicants (Article 6, paragraph 1), (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Liechtenstein's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state had paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided for in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing new, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in Appendix;     DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.   Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)73   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Steck-Risch and others against Liechtenstein     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Administrative Court on account of the failure to disclose certain documents (comments made by the municipality) to the applicants with the consequence that they could not reply. The proceedings were brought by the applicants to obtain the designation of land belonging to them as building land (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention).     Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 10   000 € 10   000 € Paid on 15/09/2005     b) Individual measures   The proceedings have been concluded at national level. The Constitutional Court has already taken account of the possible effect of the violation on the proceedings, holding that the applicants had not suffered any prejudice (see below).     General measures   Stating that the principle of equality of arms is a basic element of fairness of proceedings, the Constitutional Court agreed with the applicants' argument that they should have been afforded an opportunity to be informed of and to comment upon the municipality's observations. It did note, however, that while the submission contained new information, it had played no role in the Administrative Court's decision and therefore no prejudice had occurred. Thus the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicants' procedural rights had not been interfered with. Citing its case-law, the European Court held that the actual effect of the observations on the judgment was of little consequence, as it was above all the litigants' confidence in the work of justice which was at stake. This confidence is based inter alia on the knowledge that they could have the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file (see paragraph 57).   The judgment of the European Court was disseminated in May   2006 to all authorities concerned, particularly to the domestic courts and published in the Liechtensteinische Juristenzeitung (LJZ) in June 2006, p. 53 - 59. In this context, it should be noted that the website of the respondent state provides a direct link to the European Court's website ( www.liechtenstein.li <http://www.liechtenstein.li> - Staat - Aussenpolitik - Multilaterale Beziehungen/Internationale Organisationen - Europarat ).   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 December 2006 at the 982nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies