Izvorni znanstveni članak
Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
Jasna Omejec
; Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske, Zagreb, Hrvatska; Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, Hrvatska
Sažetak
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Court") is set up by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the States Parties and to interpret and apply the Convention (Articles 19 and 32 § 1 of the Convention). On the other hand, the Committee of Ministers, decision-making body set up by the Statute of the Council of Europe, supervises the execution of final judgments of the Court and the terms of friendly settlements as set out in the Court's decisions (Articles 39 § 4 and 46 § 2 of the Convention).
Judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (restitutio in integrum). Subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment. The paper addresses both kinds of measures: individual and general.
Within the general measures, the pilot-judgment procedure has been also analysed in the paper. In the judgment delivered in the pilot case, the Court gives advice to the Government on how to solve the systemic problem, i.e. a situation which affects, in principle, a large number of people and stems or results not just from an act or omission by a State Party but from a defective legal provision or a widespread administrative practice and which, in turn, points to legislative changes needed to resolve the problem, with accompanying administrative and budgetary measures (Tulkens).
As to the execution of the Court's judgments, in the follow up to the Interlaken Conference (2010) the crucial role of action plans/action reports has been stressed. Action Plan is a plan setting out the measures the respondent State intends to take to implement a judgment, including an indicative timetable. Action Report is information provided by the respondent State setting out the measures taken to implement the judgment, and/or its explanation of why no further measures are necessary.
Finally, the twin-track approach concerning a new system for the supervision of execution has been implemented as from 1 January 2011. Under the twin-track system, all cases are examined under the standard procedure unless, because of its specific nature, a case warrants consideration under the enhanced procedure. This system requires the State Parties to respect the fundamental concepts of action plans and action reports and to report to the Committee of Ministers on the measures taken in the execution of judgments to which they are parties.
Ključne riječi
European Court of Human Rights; execution of judgments; measures; pilot judgment; action plan; twin-track supervisory system
Hrčak ID:
100079
URI
Datum izdavanja:
28.12.2012.
Posjeta: 3.501 *