CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2CECB0A7 { height:12.65pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s26CDE78A { height:13.5pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .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 CM/ResDH(2007)115 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Běleš and others against the Czech Republic   (Application No. 47273/99, judgment of 12 November 2002, final on 12 February 2003)     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 provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern first of all the refusal to consider the merits of a case as the Czech courts had interpreted the procedural requirements in a manner that prevented the examination of the applicants' requests and complaints in substance (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1); it further concerns the lack of access to a court due to an unpredictable interpretation of the applicable procedural rules governing the admissibility of constitutional appeals (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the Czech Republic'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 paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided 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 in 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)115   Information on the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Běleš and others against the Czech Republic     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the refusal by domestic courts in December 1997 and April 1998 to determine the merits of the action brought by an association of which the applicants were members, challenging its exclusion from the “J.E. Purkyne Czech Medical Society”. The courts' refusal had been motivated by their interpretation of the procedural rules according to which the decision of exclusion should have been challenged under the provisions governing appeals against administrative acts, even though the Medical Society was a private association (violation of Article   6, paragraph 1).   The case also concerns the refusal of the Constitutional Court to examine the appeal of the applicants'   association since it had failed to lodge an appeal on points of law. The European Court held that the association was deprived of effective protection of its rights due to an unpredictable interpretation of the applicable procedural rules governing the admissibility of constitutional appeals, and especially the requirement of exhaustion of the available remedies (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 330 EUR 330 EUR Paid on 28/04/2003   b) Individual measures   The representative of the applicants' association informed the Secretariat on 2 February 2004 that her clients do not intend to request a new judicial review of the decision of exclusion at issue.     II.   General measures   Concerning the first violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 , the interpretation given by the domestic courts in this specific case to the relevant procedural rules was contradicted by the subsequent case-law of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. Moreover, the Act on the Freedom of Associations was modified in 2002 and it was made clear that appeals against decisions rendered by private associations are regulated by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and should not be dealt with under the rules governing the judicial review of administrative decisions.   Concerning the possibility to bring a case before the Constitutional Court , the rules on the admissibility of constitutional complaints had been first clarified by a Constitutional Court decision with general scope, published under No. 32/2003 in the Czech Law Collection . Subsequently, Parliament adopted Law   No.   83/2004 (which entered into force on 1 April 2004), modifying the previous Law No. 182/1993 on the Constitutional Court. According to the new law (Article 75§1), it is not necessary to have already lodged an extraordinary appeal, admissibility of which depends only on the discretionary assessment of the competent organ, such as the appeal on a point of law at issue in the present case, before bringing the case before the Constitutional Court. Besides this, in those cases where an extraordinary appeal is declared inadmissible by the competent organ only on the basis of its discretionary assessment, a constitutional complaint may be lodged within 60 days from the notification of the decision dealing with the admissibility of the appeal at issue (Article 72§4). These new provisions aim at eliminating the uncertainty which existed as regards the interpretation of the admissibility rules concerning constitutional complaints which led to the violation of the right of access to the Constitutional Court in the present case, as well as in that of Zvolský and Zvolská against the Czech Republic (judgment of 12/11/2002, closed by Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)30).   The judgment of the European Court has been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that the Czech Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies