Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)51[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
DMD group, A.S against the Slovak Republic
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”)[2],
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;
Case name (App. No.)
Judgment of
Final on
DMD GROUP, A.S (19334/03)
05/10/2010
05/01/2011
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;
Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;
Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH‑DD(2011)1150E);
Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;
DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT
App. No. 19334/03
DMD GROUP, a. s. v. Slovakia, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a violation of the right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law due to the decision by the president of a district court in June 1999 to reassign to himself a case (brought by the applicant company seeking enforcement of a financial claim against a major company involved in arms production) and then rule on it in private in the same day (violation of Article 6 § 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Cost and expenses
Total
4 000 euros
-
4 000 euros
Paid on 04/02/2011
b) Individual measures
Since 24 June 2005 the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility to reopen the domestic proceedings on the basis of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Under Section 228 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceedings may challenge a final judgment by a petition seeking to reopen the proceedings if there exists a decision delivered by European Court of Human Rights, in which it found that a decision taken by national court, or the proceedings preceding such a decision, had violated the fundamental rights or freedoms of the party to the proceedings, whereby substantial consequences arising from such violation have not been duly remedied by the awarded just satisfaction. Under Section 230 § 1, a petition for reopening of proceedings must be filed within the time limit of three months from the day on which the person proposing the reopening learned about the reason for reopening or from the day on which he/she could use this reason (a subjective time limit). Pursuant to Section 230 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the cases referred to in Section 228 § 1 (d), a petition for reopening of proceedings may also be filed after the expiry of the period of three years from the day on which the judgment became final (an objective time limit).
No other individual measures seem to be necessary.
II.General measures
a) Legislation
The Regulation no. 66/1992 Coll. on the Administrative Rules for District and Regional Courts had been in force until 1 January 2006. Since then the new legal regulation is in force. The recent legal regulation on assigning cases to judges (chambers) including court officers is regulated by Act no. 757/2004 Coll. on Courts and the Regulation of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic no. 543/2005 Coll. on the Administering and Secretarial Rules for district courts, regional courts, the Special Court and military courts.
The basic rule for assigning cases to judges is that of their random assigning, using whereby the technical as well program means designated for this purpose - the so called electronic registry. Cases are assigned by random selection to judges, chambers and court officers according to the subject matter of the proceedings which means that upon receiving the petition by the court registry the court employee shall immediately register it with the respective court registry and run the system of random selection (generation) of the legal judge. After terminating the random selection the employee of the court registry shall issue the party to the proceedings a confirming receipt of the petition containing data about the legal judge in charge in the given case. The Act expressly defines exemptions from assigning cases via electronic registry being some of the decisions issued in the pre-trial proceedings upon the Code of Criminal Procedure which must be handled without further delay (for example taking into custody, establishing the legal counsel etc.) or which are subject to confidential regime (the use of info-technical means), or as the case may be, certain decisions in civil proceedings (for instance preliminary measures in case of domestic violence), where the use of the electronic registry is limited only during the usual working time of the court.
In these instances cases are not assigned randomly by means of electronic registry but according to the rules established in the courts work schedule. Cases of execution (such as in case of DMD Group, a.s. v. Slovakia) do not belong within these exceptions. In general, the appointed court employee, i.e. the senior court officer shall decide in execution cases thus are these assigned to the latter by random selection. Judges shall exceptionally be assigned execution cases (for instance in knocking down to an auction) and if yes, by random assigning thereof. The law of the Slovak republic then meets the requirements of the European Convention and the legislation now in force will prevent similar violations in the future.
b) Publication and dissemination
The judgment was published in the Judicial Revue (Justična Revue) No. 2/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 17 October 2011 the judgment was distributed to all regional and district courts and to the Supreme Court with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of these courts. By a letter of 3 October 2011 the judgment was sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government consider that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Slovakia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.
In Bratislava, 7 December 2011
Marica Pirošíková
Agent of the Government of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
[2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy