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 } .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 } .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 } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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)65 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Strizhak against Ukraine   (Application No. 72269/01, judgment of 08 November 2005, final on 08 February 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 a breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial due to the domestic authorities' failure to inform him of the date and time of hearings (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 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, 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)65   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Strizhak against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation in 2000 of the applicant's right to a fair trial due to the domestic authorities' failure to inform him duly of the date and time of the hearings on his case, thus depriving him of the opportunity to present his arguments before the Dniepropetrovsk Regional Court (violation of Article 6§1).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 2   000 EUR 200 EUR 2   200 EUR Paid on 20/04/2006   b) Individual measures   Following the Court's judgment, the Supreme Court of Ukraine allowed the applicant's request for re ‑ opening of proceedings under exceptional circumstances, quashed the decision of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of 2/06/2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region.   On 29/05/2007, a hearing was held before the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region. The applicant and his representative were heard and presented their arguments before the court. The Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Region rejected the applicant's claim.     II.   General measures   1) Traceability of summonses : The new Code of Civil Procedure in force since 1/09/2005 (“the CCP”) provides a single procedure for delivery of all kinds of summonses -either subpoenas or judicial notifications- that is, by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt or by messenger. In both cases, acknowledgement of the receipt of the subpoena or notification shall be obtained from the recipient in writing.   According to the CCP, a summons may also be handed over directly in court, and in case of postponement of a hearing, one may be informed on receipt (handed over in person with a signature in acknowledgement) of the time and place of the next hearing.   Participants in proceedings as well as witnesses, experts, specialists and interpreters may be informed or summonsed by telegram, fax or by other means which attest to reception of notification or subpoena.   According to the CCP, the court shall postpone consideration of a case if, inter alia , a party or a participant fails to appear and no information is available to the effect that the summons has been served.   2) Translation, publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment: 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.6, 2006, a specialised journal 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 together with a letter from their hierarchy was sent to the Supreme Court of Ukraine drawing its attention to the judges' obligations arising from the findings of the European Court.     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