CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sCFFA0315 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s8E02683C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:11pt } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .s30B7EC83 { width:26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s149A98 { width:22.66pt; text-indent:0pt; 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(2008)32 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Pronina against Ukraine   (Application No. 63566/00, judgment of 18 July 2006, final on 18 October 2006)     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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the right to a fair hearing on account of domestic courts' failure to consider the applicant's arguments (violation of Article   6§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 Ukraine'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, the respondent state paid the applicant 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) and considering the decision taken at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (15 ‑ 17   October   2007), 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(2008)32   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Pronina against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing before the Yalta City Court and Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in appeal proceedings brought in 2000 concerning her pension rights. In this respect, both courts took a decision against the applicant while failing to address and review constitutional points and arguments raised by the applicant (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court found that the domestic courts, by ignoring the points altogether, even though they were specific, pertinent and important, fell short of their obligations under Article 6§1.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   The applicant requested non-pecuniary damage, but did not specify an amount, leaving its determination to the Court's discretion. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1   500 under that head.   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1   500 EUR - 1   500 EUR Paid on 18/06/2005   b) Individual measures   Following the Court judgment, by letter of 13/11/2006 the government informed the applicant of the possibility provided by the legislation in force to apply for review of the proceedings at issue under exceptional circumstances. The applicant has lodged no application for such revision.     II.   General measures   The judgment was translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website. It was published in the official government bulletin, the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 47 of 04/12/2006 and in the Yuridicheskaya Praktika – specialised edition for lawyers – No. 50, 2006, 12. A summary of the judgment in Ukrainian was also published in the Government Currier, No. 222 of 24/11/2006.   By letter of the Government Agent before the European Court of Human Rights of 07/07/2006, the attention of the Supreme Court of Ukraine was drawn to the Court's conclusions in this case to take them into account in its daily practice. The Government Agent drew attention to the present judgment in the course of a number of seminars and training sessions for judges.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case and that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Ukraine has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies