CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 juin 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 } .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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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(2008)63 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Grabchuk against Ukraine   (Application No. 8599/02, judgment of 21 September 2006, final on 21 December 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 applicant's right to the presumption of innocence due to the terms in which public authorities couched their decisions with respect to the applicant, which left no doubt as to their view that the applicant had committed an offence, although she had not been proved guilty according to law (violation of Article   6§2) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the 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, within the time-limit set, 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 by the Court in its judgments, 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(2008)63   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Grabchuk against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to the presumption of innocence. In 2000 and 2001 the prosecution service and the Volodymir-Volynskyy Court, respectively, dropped charges against the applicant of stealing state property and negligence for want of proof of a crime: The European Court found that the decisions by these authorities were couched in terms which left no doubt as to their view that the applicant had committed an offence, although she had not been proved guilty according to law (violation of Article 6§2).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1   000 EUR - 1   000 EUR Paid on 22/03/2007   b) Individual measures   Following the Court's judgment, on 25/01/2007, the authorities reminded the applicant of his right, provided by Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on enforcement of judgments and application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights to initiate re-opening of the proceedings with a view to obtaining a rectification of the decisions at issue. The applicant has not availed himself of this possibility.     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. 9, 02/2007 and in the Sudova Praktika, No. 63-4, 2007, a specialised edition for judges and lawyers. A summary of the judgment in Ukrainian was also published in the Government Currier No. 20 of 02/02/2007.   The Ukrainian authorities indicated that on 28/04/2007 the judgment of the European Court was sent out to all competent authorities, i.e. the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the State Security Service, the State Tax Administration and the Supreme Court inviting them to take account of the findings of the European Court in their daily practice.   The Prosecutor General's Office ordered the Ministry of Internal Affairs to send the judgment out to investigators. It has also been sent out to officials of local departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.   Local investigation departments of the State Tax Administration have been ordered to hold a training session on the Court's conclusions in the judgment and the Convention as a whole.   Finally, the Supreme Court has written to heads of courts of appeal drawing their attention to the Court's conclusions.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken 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 25 June 2008 at the 1028th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies