CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 2009

.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 } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; 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 } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8AC2EC0 { margin-left:50.45pt; padding-left:21.75pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)150 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ovciarov against Moldova   (Application No. 31228/02, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007)     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 in this case, 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 the breach of the applicant's right to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as a result of the quashing of a final judgment delivered in the applicant's favour (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its 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(2009)150   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Ovciarov against Moldova     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as a result of the quashing, without any valid reason by the Supreme Court of Justice, of a final court decision confirming the applicant's right of ownership over an apartment he had bought. The Supreme Court of Justice acted upon a request for annulment lodged by the Prosecutor General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)   At the material time (2000-2002), according to the former Code of Civil Procedure, the Prosecutor General or his deputies were entitled to request that the Supreme Court of Justice annul any final decision by a domestic court. Moreover, the right to file a request for annulment was not time-barred, so that such a request could be filed at any moment.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 22   300 EUR 2   000 EUR 800 EUR 25   100 EUR Paid on 18/09/2007   b) Individual measures   Following the communication of the case by the European Court, the Supreme Court of Justice re-examined the disputed proceedings and confirmed the applicant's right of ownership over the apartment. However, it awarded no compensation covering the impossibility for the applicant to regain possession of over the apartment which, meanwhile, had been partially sold to a third party. Accordingly, the European Court awarded as just satisfaction the amount of the price of the apartment. No prejudice for loss of use had been proved.   Under these circumstances, it was not considered necessary to wait for the outcome of the domestic proceedings engaged by the applicant against the third party and no question of individual measures was raised before the Committee of Ministers.     General measures   The case is similar to the case Roşca against Moldova. The measures taken to avoid new, similar violations were presented in Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)56.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on …at the 1051st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies