1176e réunion – 10 juillet 2013
Annexe 14
(Point H46-1)
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)145
Mercieca et autres contre Malte
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 21974/07, arrêt du 14 juin 2011, définitif le 14 septembre 2011)
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 10 juillet 2013,
lors de la 1176e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)653) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Action Report Mercieca and others against Malta
(Application No. 21974/07; judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011)
(anglais seulement)
Case summary
1.Case description
The applicants were certified public accountants who were being sued for damages arising out of claimed negligence. On 1 December 2003, in a preliminary judgment, the Civil Court dismissed their plea that the action should be dismissed. On 12 December 2003, the Civil Court granted leave to appeal. On 29 December 2003, the applicants lodged their appeal. On 8 June 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time due to its interpretation of the relevant rules in place. In March 2007, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the law had been erroneous and had deprived the applicants of their right to appeal. Nevertheless, it found that given that a defect in first-instance proceedings could be remedied on appeal, the right to a fair hearing had not been violated.
The European Court held that the applicants had been denied access to a court because the applicable rules on time limits had been erroneously construed by the Court of Appeal in such a way as to prevent the applicants’ appeal being examined on the merits (violation of Article 6 § 1).
Individual measures
2.Just satisfaction:
The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.
3.Individual measures:
The applicants’ domestic proceedings, referred to in the judgment, have now reached the final stages prior to the first instance decision. Following the delivery of the judgment by the court of first instance, the applicants will have the opportunity to file an appeal against both the partial judgment as well as an appeal against the final judgment should they wish to do so. The time limits for such an appeal are clearly provided for by the amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (set out below).
The authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.
General measures
4.General measures:
The Maltese legislation regulating time limits for appeal has been amended to avoid any future misinterpretation. Act XIII of 2005 amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta). This amendment, set out below, now clarifies the time limits for appeal, including after partial judgments:
“231 (1) Where several issues in an action have been determined by separate judgments, appeal from any such judgments may only be entered after the final judgment and within the prescribed time, to be reckoned from the date of such final judgment; and in such an appeal express mention of the judgment or judgments appealed from shall be made:
Provided that an appeal from such separate judgments may be entered before the final judgment only by leave of court to be read out in open court; such request for leave to appeal shall be made either orally immediately after the delivery of such judgment or by application within six days from such judgment and when such leave to appeal from such separate judgments is granted the time for the filing of the appeal in respect thereof shall commence to run from the day on which the said leave is read out in open court.”
5.Publication and dissemination:
The judgment was published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta features as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.
The judgment received media coverage by local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of the 16th June 2011 entitled ‘Maltese accountants win European court case’).
Judgment features in the publication in the names ‘Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012’, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.
State of execution of judgment
The government considers that all necessary individual and general measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy