Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)41[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
I.D. against Bulgaria
(Application No. 43578/98, judgment of 28 April 2005, final on 28 July 2005)
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 of access to a court (violation of article 6, paragraph 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(2010)41
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
I.D. against Bulgaria
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the dismissal in 1997 of her claim against her employer for damages in respect of an occupational disease. The domestic courts dealing with the case considered themselves to be bound by the conclusions of the medical commissions to the effect that there was no link between her illness and the nature of her job, and dismissed the applicant’s claim without examining the case on its merits (violation of Article 6§1).
The European Court noted in this respect that the medical commissions could not be regarded as tribunals within the meaning of Article 6§1 and that it was not established that, at the relevant time, the applicant could have obtained a judicial review of their decisions.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
3,000 EUR
1,500 EUR
4,500 EUR
Paid on 20/10/2005
b) Individual measures
The applicant had the possibility to ask for the re-opening of the proceedings concerning her claim for damages on basis of the former Article 231§1, letter “z” of the Code of Civil Procedure (in force at the time when the European Court delivered its judgment). In these circumstances, no individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The European Court noted in its judgment that in a series of decisions delivered since 1999, the Supreme Administrative Court (unlike its predecessor, the Supreme Court) has held that of the medical commissions’ decisions are subject to judicial review (§§34 and 54 of the judgment).
Furthermore, it should be noted that the regulation adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2001 on the declaration and the establishment of an occupational disease provided expressly that the decisions of these commissions are subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (Article 15 of the regulation). Similar provision was included in the new Regulation on this matter adopted in 2008 (Article 12).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant by the Court, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Bulgaria has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy