Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)195
Paulik contre République slovaque
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête n° 10699/05, arrêt du 10 octobre 2006, définitif le 10 janvier 2007)
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 26 septembre 2013,
lors de la 1179e 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 que le Comité 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 les violations constatées ;
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)847)[1] ;
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.
ACTION REPORT
Application No. 10699/05 Paulík v. Slovakia
judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007
(anglais uniquement)
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a violation of the right to respect for private life of the applicant due to the impossibility, in 2004, of challenging his paternity which had been established by a court in 1970, notwithstanding the fact that according to DNA tests conducted in 2004 he was not the father of the child (violation of Article 8). It also concerned the difference in treatment between the applicant, who, due to the fact that his paternity had been established by a court, had no procedure by which he could challenge the declaration of his paternity, and others in a similar situation who (if paternity was only presumed by marriage or declaration) were able to access a procedure to challenge paternity (violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article 8).
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Just satisfaction
In its judgment, the European Court awarded to the applicant non-pecuniary damage and compensation for the cost and expenses (§ 72 and § 75). The due sums were paid on 15 February 2007.
b) Other individual measures
In its judgment, the European Court noted that the applicant could request the reopening of the proceedings under Articles 228 § 1(d) and 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under these provisions, a party in the proceedings can request reopening of the proceedings if the European Court has found a violation and if the consequences of the violation have not been adequately redressed by the award of just satisfaction. The possibility of reopening the domestic proceedings is subject to a time-limit of three months as of the final judgment of the European Court.
On 26/01/2007 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a petition for reopening of the paternity proceedings with the Bratislava IV District Court under Article 228 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 03/10/2007 the Bratislava I District Court delivered its decision in the reopened paternity proceedings. On 02/04/2008 the Nitra Register Office amended the record in the birth register, removing the reference to the applicant as the father. Subsequently, a new birth certificate of the child has been issued in which the applicant is not registered as the father and in the column “father” the word “unknown” is marked.
The Government consider that no other individual measures appear necessary.
II. General measures:
a) Publication and dissemination
The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justičná Revue) No. 2/2007.
b) Legislative measures
In order to address the violations found by the European Court, the Slovak authorities amended the Code of Civil Procedure to provide individuals the possibility of applying to court to reopen proceedings based on DNA evidence or other scientific methods which had not been available in the original court proceedings. This amendment will, inter alia, provide people in the same situation as the applicant the possibility of applying to court to challenge paternity and will avoid any similar violations in the future.
Pursuant to Article 228 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as in force from 1 January 2013) a party to the proceedings can challenge final and binding judgments by, inter alia, lodging a request to reopen the proceedings
(a) If facts, decisions or evidence have come to light which she/he could not use in the original proceedings through no fault of their own and which may result in a more favourable decision for the requesting party.
(b) where evidence that could not have been brought in the original proceedings can now be presented and where that evidence may lead to a more favourable decision in the matter.
In addition, Article 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended and in force from 1 January 2013, includes a list of the exceptional grounds for reopening of the proceedings after the lapsing of the period of three years from the judgment becoming final.
This now includes sub-section (e) § 2 which provides that:
“e) Article 228 § 1 (a) or (b), if new evidence relates to up to date scientific methods unable to be availed in the original proceedings.”
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention and that the case should be closed.
In Bratislava, 31 July 2013
Marica Pirošíková
Agent of the Slovak Republic
before the European Court of Human Rights
[1] Anglais uniquement.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy