Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)72[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Majski (No. 2) against Croatia
(Application No. 16924/08, judgment of 19/07/2011, final on 19/10/2011)
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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)396E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)396E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
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
CASE TITLE: MAJSKI (2) V. CROATIA,
APPLICATION NO.:16924/08, JUDGMENT OF 19/07/2011, FINAL ON: 19/10/2011
In its judgment in the Majski (2) case the ECtHR found a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the refusal of domestic courts to examine his case on merits, despite the fact that the State Attorneys Council had informed him to resort to a wrong remedy (violation of Article 6§1).
1.INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
Following the final judgment of the ECtHR, under Article 428a of the Croatian Code of Civil Procedure in relation to Article 60 of the Law on Administrative Disputes (Official Gazette No. 53/91, 9/92 and 77/92) the applicant had the right to file a petition for the reopening of proceedings within 30 days after the ECtHR judgment became final.
The applicant submitted his petition for reopening of proceedings based on the ECtHR judgment on 19 November 2011.
On 1 February 2012 the High Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for reopening of proceedings, as it was lodged out of time (the deadline for filing such a petition expired on 18 November 2011).
2.GENERAL MEASURES
translation, publication and dissemination of the judgment
The judgment has been translated into Croatian language and disseminated to the relevant authorities — the Constitutional Court of RoC and the High Administrative Court. The judgment is published on the web pages of the Ministry of Justice ().
legislative changes
The respondent state wishes to inform the Committee of Ministers of the legislative changes undertaken in the Law on Administrative Disputes which are relevant for this case. The new Law on Administrative Disputes ("Official Gazzette", No. 22/10) entered into force on 1 January 2012. It regulates proceedings in administrative disputes before Administrative Courts in the first degree and the High Administrative Court in the second degree.
The new Law on Administrative Disputes stipulates that the court shall see to it that the ignorance of parties in the administrative dispute does not harm their rights prescribed by law.
The Law also prescribes that when the administrative action is flawed, the court shall call upon the plaintiff to remedy the deficiency within a set time-limit. The same rule applies in appellate proceedings regarding the deficiencies of an appeal.
Regarding the uncertainty about remedies available against decisions of the State Attorney’ s Council, the Government submits that the uncertainty was remedied by interpretation of Administrative Court on 17 November 2004, as the ECtHR itself noted in §70 of the judgment. The Administrative Court held that such decisions could only be challenged by a request for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed right.
The legislative changes undertaken, along with the dissemination and publication of the judgment are sufficient to ensure that no further violations of this kind occur.
3. JUST SATISFACTION
Just satisfaction awarded to the applicant has been paid in two instalments due to a mistake in translation of the judgment. The amount of 1.800 euros (converted into Croatian kunas on the day of payment) was paid to the applicant’s representative on 18 November 2011 and an additional amount of 1.200 euros (converted into Croatian kunas on the day of payment) was paid to the applicant’s representative on 13 December 2011. Total amount awarded was paid within the 3 month deadline. Payment information on two prescribed forms was delivered to the Execution’s Department on December 23, 2012.
CONCLUSION
The Government deems that all necessary measures for the execution of the judgment in this case have been taken, and therefore proposes to the Committee of Ministers the closure of the execution supervision procedure, and the adoption of a final resolution (Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention in relation to Rule 17 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements).
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 June 2012 at the 1144th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy