CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 mars 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 73 March 2005 Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.) - 13677/03 Decision 1.3.2005 [Section IV] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment No jurisdiction to examine a High Contracting Party’s compliance with its obligations under a previous judgment or to oblige it to re-open domestic proceedings in similar cases: inadmissible   In 2002 the Court delivered judgment in application no. 32106/96 in which it found inter alia that there had been a violation of Article   6 in respect of the procedure followed by the national courts when examining the applicant’s civil action relating to his dismissal. In 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, requesting it to quash the ordinary courts’ decisions relating to his dismissal. The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the Constitutional Court Act contained no provision permitting it either to examine the legal consequences of a judgment in which the European Court had found a violation by Slovakia or to re-open domestic proceedings on the basis of such a finding. In his follow-up case before the European Court the applicant principally complained about the Slovakian authorities’ failure to effectively eliminate the consequences of the violation of his rights under Article   6. The Court noted that the proceedings relating to the control of execution of its judgment of 2002 were still pending before the Committee of   Ministers. The Court had no jurisdiction to examine whether or to what extent a High Contracting Party had complied with its obligations under one of its judgments or to oblige a High Contracting Party to re-open domestic proceedings in similar cases. There was no right under the Convention to the re-opening of proceedings in which a final decision existed and the guarantees of Article   6 § 1 did not apply to proceedings concerning the re-opening of a civil case. As regards the applicant’s further complaints about shortcomings in the proceedings on his constitutional complaint, the Court noted that the Constitutional Court had rejected his complaint as falling outside the scope of its jurisdiction. Article   6 § 1 neither guaranteed any particular content for civil rights and obligations nor was it aimed at creating new substantive rights which had no basis in domestic law. Incompatible ratione materiae as a whole.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes