Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)152[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Treial against Estonia
(Application No. 48129/99, judgment of 02/12/2003, final on 02/03/2004)
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 the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (divorce and division of property) for which the European Court underlined the need of special diligence (violation of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Estonia’s 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 in the judgment, 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(2007)152
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Treial against Estonia
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings (divorce and division of property) (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings, introduced in 1994, lasted more than 9 years and 9 months, of which 7 years and 7 months fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. The divorce was pronounced in December 1999, but proceedings relating to the outstanding claim of division of inheritance, partially resolved on 4 December 2000, were still pending before the court of first instance when the European Court delivered its judgment.
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
300 EUR
3 300 EUR
Paid on 23/03/2004
b) Individual measures
The proceedings have ended in May 2006.
II.General measures
1) Length of judicial proceedings:
Given that that there is no systematic problem concerning the length of proceedings in Estonia and that the Estonian courts give direct effect to the case-law of the European Court, publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court are sufficient measures to prevent new, similar violations.
The judgment has been translated into Estonian, disseminated to all domestic courts and prosecutors and published for the moment on the internet site of the Council of Europe Information Centre in Tallinn ().
2) Effective remedy:
Anyone may file a complaint before the administrative courts against delays in judicial proceedings or inaction by the courts. In doing so, he/she may rely on the relevant provisions of the Constitution or of the Convention as well as on the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure and the case-law of the Supreme Court. It is possible during such proceedings to demand compensation for damage caused by such delays/inaction and the administrative courts have competence to order the payment of compensation.
Moreover, the new Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force on 1 January 2006, provides a special appeal for parties to cases in which a court adjourns the hearing without the consent of the parties for more than three months.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Estonia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 December 2007 at the 1013th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy