Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)264[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Lexa against the Slovak Republic
(Application No. 54334/00, judgment of 23 September 2008, final on 23 December 2008)
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 violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security, on account of his unlawful detention on remand in 1999 (violation of Article 5, 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(2011)264
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Lexa against the Slovak Republic
Introductory case summary
This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security, on account of his unlawful detention on remand in 1999 (violation of Article 5§1). The applicant, previously Director of the Slovakian Information Service (the Slovakian intelligence service - Slovenská informačná služba), was suspected of involvement in the abduction in 1995 of the son of the then Slovakian President. Two amnesty decrees related to the abduction were promulgated by the Prime Minister on 03/03/1998 and 07/07/1998. On 08/12/1998, the new Prime Minister revoked the amnesties given by his predecessor. In April 1999 the police investigator[2] brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and he was detained on remand on 15/04/1999, being released on 19/07/1999.
Referring to a Supreme Court decision of 2002, the European Court held that the amnesties granted on 03/03/1998 and 07/07/1998 covered the offences for which the applicant had been prosecuted. The European Court noted that any criminal liability arising from the action at issue had therefore been extinguished by the decision on amnesty of 03/03/1998. The applicant’s subsequent prosecution was therefore not permissible under domestic law, and so the applicant’s detention could not be considered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (§142 of the judgment).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
-
8 000 EUR
8 000 EUR
Paid on 2 March 2009
b) Individual measures
The applicant was released on 19/07/1999. The European Court considered that the finding of the violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Consequently, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The violation in this case relates to particular factual circumstances and appears to be of an isolated nature. Therefore, the European Court’s judgment was translated into Slovak and published in Justičná Revue No.12/2008, in accordance with the Slovakian authorities’ practice on publication. On 06/04/2009 the judgment was distributed to all regional courts and to the Supreme Court under cover of a circular sent from the Minister of Justice. The presidents of regional courts and the President of the Criminal Divisions of the Supreme Court were asked to notify the judgment to all judges within their jurisdiction dealing with criminal cases.
In relation to the general context of the violation, the European Court recalled that “where a State agent is charged with crimes involving torture or ill-treatment, it is of the utmost importance that criminal proceedings and sentencing are not time-barred and that the granting of an amnesty or pardon should not be permissible” (§139 of the judgment). However, the Court also noted the legislative amendments made subsequent to the facts in this case “such as the modification of the scope of the President’s powers to issue measures of individual clemency” (§140 of the judgment). Since 01/07/2001, paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution has provided that a decision on amnesty made by the President is valid subject to its signature by the Prime Minister or another minister whom the latter has authorised (§66 of the judgment).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
[2] Police Investigators form part of the prosecuting authorities in the Slovak Republic. A Police Investigator carries out the investigation and lodges an accusation. The Prosecutor supervises this work and than eventually lodges an indictment.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy