Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)47[1]
Aydemir and Michalko cases against Slovakia
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 44153/06, judgment of 8 February 2011, final on 8 May 2011
Application No. 35377/05, judgment of 21 December 2010, final on and 21 March 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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2013)146E);
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 judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)146E);
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 these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT
Application No. 35377/05 Aydemir v. Slovakia
judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011 and
application no. 35377/05 Michalko v. Slovakia
judgment of 21/12/2010, final on 21/03/2011
Introductory case summary
These cases concern a violation of the right to liberty and security due to the length of detention on remand, the length and fairness of proceedings on the release from detention on remand and failure of compensation for unlawful detention (violations of Article 5 § 3, 4 and 5).
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Just satisfaction
Case
Application No.
Date of judgment
Just satisfaction (EUR)
Paid on
Aydemir
44153/06
08/02/2011
5 500
23/06/2011
Michalko
35377/05
21/12/2010
9 000
26/04/2011
b) Individual measures
In the case Aydemir v. Slovakia the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage (§ 98 of the judgment). In the case Michalko v. Slovakia the Court awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage (§ 183 of the judgment). The applicants in both cases were already released from detention on remand. No other individual measures seem to be necessary.
II. General measures
a) Legislation
With respect to the first violation of Article 5 § 4 (lack of adequate possibility to challenge the lawfulness of the applicants’ pre-trial detention) cases Aydemir and Michalko resemble the case Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2), application no. 34761/03. The supervision of the execution of the judgment in the case Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 2) was closed by the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution no. CM/resDH(2012)53.
Concerning the second violation of Article 5 § 4 (failure to promptly examine the applicants’ request for release from detention on remand) cases Aydemir and Michalko resemble the case Kucera v. Slovakia (application no. 48666/99). The supervision of the execution of the judgment in the case of Kucera v. Slovakia was closed by the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution no. CM/ResDH(2011)158. The same final resolution is applicable also to the violation of Article 5 § 3 in the case of Michalko.
Regarding violation of Article 5 § 5 cases Aydemir and Michalko resemble the case Pavletic v. Slovakia (application no. 39359/98). The supervision of the execution of the judgment in the case of Pavletic v Slovakia was closed by the Committee of Ministers’ final resolution no. CM/ResDH(2011)34.
Therefore, the cases of Aydemir and Michalko do not require adoption of any further general measures other than publication and dissemination.
b) Publication and dissemination
The judgment in the case Aydemir was published in Justičná Revue No. 10/2011 and judgment in the case Michalko was published in Justičná Revue No. 6-7/2011. By letters of the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic of 28 October 2011 the judgments were sent to the President of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all constitutional judges about it, to the General Prosecutor with the request to give notice to all prosecutors about it and to the president of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic with the request to give notice to all judges of that chamber about it. By letters of the same date they were also distributed to presidents of all regional courts with the request to give notice thereon to all judges of regional and district courts. All the judgments were given the attention on the meeting of the Agent of the Slovak Republic before the European Court of Human Rights with judges and subsequently advisers of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, held on 23 June 2011, which was attended also by Mr Šikuta, the judge of the European Court of Human Rights.
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The Government consider that the Slovak Republic has thus complied with their obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention.
In Bratislava, 14 February 2013
Marica Pirošíková
Agent of the Slovak Republic
before the European Court of Human Rights
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 March 2013 at the 1164th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy