Volume of decisions

Ministers’ Deputies

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2013)1177 13 September 2013

1177th meeting, 11 September 2013

Decisions adopted

CONTENTS

Page

List of those present .................................................................................................................. 8

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 11

1. General questions

1.1 Adoption of the agenda............................................................................................................. 11

1.2 Preparation of forthcoming meetings............................................................................................ ⁺

1.3 Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General......................................... 11

1.4 Report of the Bureau................................................................................................................. 12

1.5 Conferences of specialised ministers – State of preparation.......................................................... ⁺

2. Democracy and political questions

2.1 The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia......................................................................... ⁺

2.1bis Current political questions

a. Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability.................................. 12

b. Other questions....................................................................................................................... ⁺

- Statement by the Representative of San Marino

2.2 Situation in Cyprus....................................................................................................................... +

3. Parliamentary Assembly

3.1 Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

a. Written Question No. 642 by Mr Mogens Jensen: “The situation of Burmese refugees in

Romania”.................................................................................................................................. 12

4. Human rights

H46-1 Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –

Adoption of final resolutions...................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Exchange of views with Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights...... ⁺

4.2 Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) –

Interim report to the Committee of Ministers, for information, on the negotiations on the

accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights.......................... 16

4.3 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) –

Abridged report of the 61st meeting (Strasbourg, 18-21 June 2013).............................................. 16

4.4 Exchange of views with Professor Luis Jimena Quesada, President of the European Committee

of Social Rights (ECSR)............................................................................................................... ⁺

Page

6. Social cohesion

6.1 European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) ‒

Committee of Experts on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CS-RPD) ‒

Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on ensuring full inclusion of children and young people with disabilities into society............................................. 16

6.2 Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) –

Abridged report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 14-16 May 2013)................................................ 16

6.3 European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare (EDQM) –

European Committee on Organ Transplantation (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-TO) ‒

Abridged report of the 11th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013).............................................. 17

6.4 European Code of Social Security – Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter

and the European Code of Social Security ‒ Draft Resolutions CM/ResCSS(2013)… on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Additional Protocol

(period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)........................................................................................... 17

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 1177th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies

(Item 1.1) (Strasbourg, 11 (10 a.m.) September 2013)

Agenda........................................................................................................... 18

APPENDIX 2 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)150

(Item H46-1) Twenty-two cases against Bulgaria

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights........................ 21

APPENDIX 3 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)151

(Item H46-1) Dodov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 22

APPENDIX 4 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)152

(Item H46-1) Kirilov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 26

APPENDIX 5 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)153

(Item H46-1) Angel Angelov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 29

APPENDIX 6 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)154

(Item H46-1) Twenty-five cases against Cyprus

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 32

APPENDIX 7 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)155

(Item H46-1) Two cases against the Czech Republic

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 38

APPENDIX 8 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)156

(Item H46-1) Ten cases against the Czech Republic

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights........................ 41

Page

APPENDIX 9 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)157

(Item H46-1) One case against Romania and France (Dinu) and one case against

France (Romańczyk)

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 42

APPENDIX 10 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)158

(Item H46-1) Maat against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 47

APPENDIX 11 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)159

(Item H46-1) Three cases against France

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 50

APPENDIX 12 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)160

(Item H46-1) Mizzi against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 53

APPENDIX 13 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)161

(Item H46-1) Two cases against Malta (Aquilina and others and John Anthony Mizzi)

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 56

APPENDIX 14 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)162

(Item H46-1) Dadouch against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 59

APPENDIX 15 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)163

(Item H46-1) Two cases against Poland

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 61

APPENDIX 16 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)164

(Item H46-1) Twenty-four cases against Poland

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights........................ 64

APPENDIX 17 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)165

(Item H46-1) Beires Côrte-Real against Portugal

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 65

APPENDIX 18 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)166

(Item H46-1) Jones against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 67

APPENDIX 19 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)167

(Item H46-1) Birzescu and others and Fundatia Bucovina Mission Inc. and

Fundatia Bucovina Bucresti against Romania

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights....................... 70

APPENDIX 20 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)168

(Item H46-1) Maszni against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 72

APPENDIX 21 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)169

(Item H46-1) Twenty-seven cases against Serbia

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights........................ 75

APPENDIX 22 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)170

(Item H46-1) S.F. and Others against Sweden

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 76

Page

APPENDIX 23 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)171

(Item H46-1) Strömblad against Sweden

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 78

APPENDIX 24 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)172

(Item H46-1) Lönn against Sweden

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights..................... 80

APPENDIX 25 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)173

(Item H46-1) Seven cases against Ukraine

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights........................ 82

APPENDIX 26 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)174

(Item H46-1) Connors against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 83

APPENDIX 27 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)175

(Item H46-1) M.S. against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights................... 86

APPENDIX 28 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)1

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Belgium

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)......................................................... 89

APPENDIX 29 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)2

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Cyprus

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)......................................................... 92

APPENDIX 30 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)3

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by the Czech Republic

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)......................................................... 96

APPENDIX 31 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)4

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Denmark

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)......................................................... 99

APPENDIX 32 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)5

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Estonia

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 103

APPENDIX 33 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)6

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by France

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 105

APPENDIX 34 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)7

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Germany

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 107

APPENDIX 35 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)8

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Ireland

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 108

Page

APPENDIX 36 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)9

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Italy

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 112

APPENDIX 37 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)10

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Luxembourg

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 115

APPENDIX 38 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)11

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by the Netherlands

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 117

APPENDIX 39 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)12

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Norway

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 120

APPENDIX 40 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)13

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Portugal

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 123

APPENDIX 41 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)14

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Romania

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 127

APPENDIX 42 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)15

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Slovenia

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 131

APPENDIX 43 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)16

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Spain

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 134

APPENDIX 44 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)17

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Sweden

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 136

APPENDIX 45 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)18

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Switzerland

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 138

APPENDIX 46 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)19

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Turkey

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 140

APPENDIX 47 Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)20

(Item 6.4) on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by the United Kingdom

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)....................................................... 142

The 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies opened on 11 September 2013 at 10.00 a.m. under the chairmanship of Mr A. Papikyan, Deputy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia.

PRESENT

ALBANIA

Mr D. Koreshi

Ms A. Kasa

Mr R. Hoxha

ANDORRA

Mr J. Dallerès

Mr J. Forner Rovira

Ms R. Solà Amat

ARMENIA

Mr A. Papikyan, Chairman

Mr S. Kartashyan

Ms E. Harutyunyan

Ms V. Melikyan

Ms I. Beglaryan

Mr A. Khachatryan

AUSTRIA

Mr R. Lennkh, Vice-Chairman

Mr W.-L. Strohmayer

Mr M. Reichard

Mr S. Rutkowski

AZERBAIJAN

Mr E. Eyyubov

Mr J. Mirzayev

Mr A. Gunashov

BELGIUM

Mr M. Creffier

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Mr A. Săhović

Ms L. Ljubic-Lépine

Mr B. Babić

BULGARIA

Mr A. Tehov

Ms D. Stambolova-Ivanova

Ms K. Nikolova

CROATIA

Ms B. Babić

Mr I. Mintas

CYPRUS

Mr S. Hatziyiannis

Mr T. Pittakis

CZECH REPUBLIC

Mr T. Boček

Mr J. Šlais

DENMARK

Mr C. von Barnekow

ESTONIA

Ms G. Rennel

Ms K. Juhasoo-Lawrence

Mr T. Tang

FINLAND

Mr P. Hyvönen

Ms L. Liira

Ms T. Leikas-Botta

FRANCE

Ms J. Caballero

Mr F. Liétout

GEORGIA

Mr K. Korkelia

Mr I. Giviashvili

Ms A. Doborjginidze

GERMANY

Mr J.G. Luy

Mr U. Petry

Ms V. Wolf

GREECE

Mr I. Asteriadis

Ms M. Solomou

Ms I. Petropoulou

Ms O. Patsopoulou

HUNGARY

Mr F. Robák

Ms A. Tóth-Ferenci

ICELAND

Mr I. Fridriksson

IRELAND

Mr P. Gunning

Mr F. Power

Ms R. Hynes

ITALY

Mr M. Jacoangeli

Mr G. Cavagna

LATVIA

Ms A. Liepina

LIECHTENSTEIN

Mr D. Ospelt

LITHUANIA

Mr G. Šerkšnys

Ms U. Matulevičiené

Mr V. Šakalys

LUXEMBOURG

Ms M. Eisenbarth

Ms A. Kayser-Attuil

Mr B. Bollendorff

MALTA

Mr J. Filletti

Mr A. Ghigo

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Ms T. Pârvu

Mr S. Mihov

Ms L. Ilieş

MONACO

Mrs C. Gastaud

Mr G. Revel

MONTENEGRO

Ms A. Vukadinović

NETHERLANDS

Ms E. Berends

Ms K. Adhin

NORWAY

Ms A. Helle

Ms K. Hefre

Mr Y. O. Hvoslef

POLAND

Ms U. Gacek

Mr R. Drzazga

Ms M. Kaczmarska

Ms I. Marczyk-Stępniewska

PORTUGAL

Mr P. Neves Pocinho

ROMANIA

Mr S. Stoian

Mr C. Urse

Ms M. Ştefănescu

Mr D. Dumitrache

Mr G. Buliga

Mr F. Mitrea

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Mr V. Egorov

Mr V. Nevzorov

Ms M. Molodtsova

Mr S. Savushkin

Mr E. Ryzhkin

Mr A. Vlasov

Mr D. Rykovskov

Mr A. Muratov

SAN MARINO

Ms M. Bovi

SERBIA

Mr V. Lazovic

Ms V. Radonjic-Rakic

Ms J. Backovic

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Mr D. Štefánek

Ms L. Erdelská

SLOVENIA

Mr D. Bergant

Mr H. Hartman

SPAIN

Mr F. Alvargonzález

Mr F. Torres Muro

Mr L. Tarin Martin

SWEDEN

Mr C.-H. Ehrenkrona

Mr J. Bäverbrant Stanghed

Ms S. Finnigan

SWITZERLAND

Mr C.-E. Held

Mr B. Gubler

Mr U. Beer

“THE FORMER YUGOSLAV

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”

Mr P. Pop-Arsov

Mr T. Pavloski

Mr Z. Barbutov

TURKEY

Mr R.E. Soysal

Ms N. Erdem-Ari

Mr U. Acar

Ms B. Kabakçi

Ms E. Demircan

Mr S. Şahin

Ms F.B. Okur

UKRAINE

Mr M. Tochytskyi

Mr A. Nadzhos

Mr D. Podolskyi

Mr M. Kononenko

Mr O. Kulikovskyi

Ms O. Pasheniuk

Ms O. Popescu

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr M. Johnson

Mr S. Kelly

* *

EUROPEAN UNION

Ms L. Pavan-Woolfe

Mr J. Grabowski

Ms D. Candura

Mr G.C. Bruno

* *

CANADA

‒

HOLY SEE

Mgr A. Giordano

Mr I. Ceffalia

JAPAN

Mr S. Hasegawa

Mr T. Kikuchi

Mr T. Shintaku

Ms E. Saito

MEXICO

Mr S. Oñate Laborde

Mr A. Martinez Peralta

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr E. Reade

Introduction

At the start of the meeting, the Chairman welcomed Ambassador Rudolf Lennkh, Permanent Representative of Austria, Ambassador Jocelyne Caballero, Permanent Representative of France, Ambassador Michèle Eisenbarth, Permanent Representative of Luxembourg, Ambassador Joseph Filletti, Permanent Representative of Malta, and Ambassador Astrid Helle, Permanent Representative of Norway. He also welcomed Mr Joan Forner Rovira, Deputy Permanent Representative of Andorra, Ms Blaženka Babić, Deputy Permanent Representative of Croatia, Mr Jiří Šlais, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic, Ms Kärt Juhasso-Lawrence, Deputy Permanent Representative of Estonia, Ms Kinga Jensen-Magyar, Deputy Permanent Representative of Hungary, Mr Ingólfur Fridriksson, Deputy Permanent Representative of Iceland, Mr Frank Power, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ireland, Mr Federico Torres Muro, Deputy Permanent Representative of Spain, Mr Johan Bäverbrant Stanghed, Deputy Permanent Representative of Sweden, Ms An Ghys and Mr Mattias Creffier, Deputies to the Permanent Representative of Belgium, Ms Kameliya Nikolova, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Bulgaria, Mr Uwe Petry, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Germany, Ms Antoinette Doran, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Ireland, Mr Yngve Olsen Hvoslef, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Norway, Ms Marta Kaczmarska and Ms Iwona Marczyk-Stępniewska, Deputies to the Permanent Representative of Poland, Mr Florin Mitrea, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Romania, Ms Buket Kabakçi, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Turkey. Amongst the Observer States, he welcomed Mr Santiago Oñate Laborde, Permanent Observer of Mexico and Mr Ignazio Ceffalia, Deputy Permanent Observer of the Holy See. The Chair wished them all a pleasant stay in Strasbourg and a successful mission within the Committee.

Item 1.1

Adoption of the agenda

Decisions

The Deputies

1. agreed to postpone the following item to one of their forthcoming meetings:

3.1

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

a. Written Question No. 642 by Mr Mogens Jensen: “The situation of Burmese refugees in Romania”

2. agreed to add the following sub-item to the agenda of their present meeting:

2.1bis

Current political questions

b. Other questions

- Statement by the Representative of San Marino

3. taking into account the decisions 1 and 2 above, adopted the agenda of their 1177th meeting, as it appears at Appendix 1 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 1.3

Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General
(SG/Com(2013)1177 and SG/Inf(2013)31)

Decision

The Deputies took note of the communication of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General (SG/Com(2013)1177) and the exchange of views under this item.

Item 1.4

Report of the Bureau
(CM/Bur/Del(2013)17)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. approved the Bureau’s recommendations with regard to the agendas of their 1177th (11 September 2013) and 1178th (17-18 September 2013) meetings, as they appear in the Appendix to the Bureau report;

2. approved the Bureau’s recommendation that Ambassador Tatiana Pârvu, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Moldova and Thematic Co-ordinator on Equality and Trafficking (TC-ET), represent the Committee of Ministers at the 12th meeting of the Committee of the Parties of the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (Strasbourg, 7 October 2013);

3. approved the Bureau’s recommendations as regards use of the Committee of Ministers’ Foyer, as set out in item 4 of the Bureau report;

4. took note of the report of the meeting of the Bureau of 9 September 2013 (document CM/Bur/Del(2013)17) as a whole.

Item 2.1bis

Current political questions

a. Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability

(GR-DEM(2013)CB7)

Decision

The Deputies took note of the synopsis of the GR-DEM meeting held on 4 July 2013 (document GR‑DEM(2013)CB7).

Item 3.1a

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

a. Written Question No. 642 by Mr Mogens Jensen: “The situation of Burmese refugees in Romania”

This item was postponed.

Item H46-1

Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –

Adoption of final resolutions

Decision

The Deputies adopted the Final Resolutions CM/ResDH(2013)150 to 175, as they appear listed below and at Appendices 2 to 27 to the present volume of Decisions.

Resolution	Application	Case	Judgment or decision of	Final on
BULGARIA
CM/ResDH(2013)150	8250/05+	DIMITROVA-MIHOVA AND 9 OTHER APPLICATIONS	10/05/2012	Decision
	10450/05+	KARAVASILEVA AND 11 OTHER APPLICATIONS	21/02/2012	Decision
	27466/05+	KIROVI AND 5 OTHER APPLICATIONS	11/09/2012	Decision
	41095/05+	SLAVOV AND OTHERS AND 6 OTHER APPLICATIONS	10/05/2012	Decision
	45661/05	KIURKCHIAN	10/01/2012	Decision
	45664/05	DIMITROVA	04/10/2011	Decision
	101/06	RADOMIROV AND RADOMIROVA-ERESHTENKO	05/07/2011	Decision
	2671/06	NENKOV	30/08/2011	Decision
	2731/06	FIRKOV	31/05/2011	Decision
	19985/06	SOTIROV	03/07/2012	Decision
	20405/06	HEROS NORD OOD	30/08/2011	Decision
	24361/06	TAVITYAN	30/08/2011	Decision
	44503/06	STOLAROVI	28/06/2011	Decision
	6542/07	METODIEV	11/09/2012	Decision
	6942/07	BOCHUKOV AND OTHERS	20/03/2012	Decision
	7100/07+	FRENKOV AND 8 OTHER APPLICATIONS	20/03/2012	Decision
	15423/07	VASILEVI AND 8 OTHER APPLICATIONS	03/07/2012	Decision
	34587/07	TSONEVA	11/09/2012	Decision
	36863/07	PETROVI	10/05/2012	Decision
	4925/08+	FRENKEVA AND 2 OTHER APPLICATIONS	15/01/2013	Decision
	26863/08	NESHKOV No. IV	30/08/2011	Decision
	35482/08	SIMEONOV No. II	10/05/2012	Decision
CM/ResDH(2013)151	59548/00	DODOV	17/01/2008	17/04/2008
CM/ResDH(2013)152	15158/02	KIRILOV	22/05/2008	22/08/2008
CM/ResDH(2013)153	51343/99	ANGELOV ANGEL	15/02/2007	15/05/2007
CYPRUS
CM/ResDH(2013)154	62242/00	GREGORIOU	25/03/2003	09/07/2003
	34579/05	A.J. HADJIHANNA BROS (TOURIST ENTERPRISES) LTD AND HADJIHANNAS	18/01/2007	18/04/2007
	37885/04	CHARALAMBIDES	15/01/2009	15/04/2009
	43151/04	CHARALAMBOUS ARESTI	19/07/2007	19/10/2007
	30282/06	CHRISTODOULOU	16/07/2009	16/10/2009
	6470/02	CICHOWICZ	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	35128/02	CLERIDES AND KYNIGOS	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	21929/04	DOUGLAS	17/07/2008	01/12/2008
	15940/02	GAVRIELIDES	01/06/2006	01/09/2006
	73802/01	GAVRIELIDOU AND OTHERS	06/04/2006	06/07/2006
	2647/02	JOSEPHIDES	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	33761/02	JOSEPHIDES	06/12/2007	02/06/2008
	2669/02	KYRIAKIDIS AND KYRIAKIDOU	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	68448/01	LERIOS	23/03/2006	23/06/2006
	14790/06	MYLONAS	11/12/2008	06/07/2009
	30503/03	ODYSSEOS	08/03/2007	08/06/2007
	2418/05	OUZOUNIAN BARRET	18/01/2007	09/07/2007
	20429/02	PAPAKOKKINOU	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	4403/03	PAPAKOKKINOU	14/12/2006	14/03/2006
	20435/02	PAROUTIS	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	19106/03	PASTELLIS	02/03/2006	02/06/2006
	47119/99	SHACOLAS	04/05/2006	04/08/2006
	35698/03	TENGERAKIS	09/11/2006	09/02/2007
	21322/02	TSAGGARIS	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
	38775/02	WALDNER	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
CZECH REPUBLIC
CM/ResDH(2013)155	8857/08	BERGMANN	27/10/2011	27/01/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)155	40094/08	PRODELALOVA	20/12/2011	20/02/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)156	9491/06	SHLUMOVA AND CHLUM	20/09/2011	Decision
	33307/06	OBRATILOVI	15/03/2011	Decision
	17893/07	A.F.	18/10/2011	Decision
	19804/07	RYSL	04/10/2011	Decision
	31251/07	E.H.	29/11/2011	Decision
	28454/08	SIMEK AND SIMKOVA	15/11/2011	Decision
	13970/09	SVOBODOVA	18/10/2011	Decision
	1536/10	ZAHRADIL	20/09/2011	Decision
	21617/10	TYKVA	19/06/2012	Decision
	21826/10	FERENCIKOVA	30/08/2011	Decision
FRANCE
CM/ResDH(2013)157	6152/02	DINU[1]	04/11/2008	06/04/2009
CM/ResDH(2013)157	7618/05	ROMANCZYK	18/11/2010	18/02/2011
CM/ResDH(2013)158	39001/97	MAAT	27/04/2004	27/07/2004
CM/ResDH(2013)159	29408/08	SOCIETE CANAL PLUS AND OTHERS	21/12/2010	21/03/2011
	29613/08	COMPAGNIE DES GAZ DE PETROLE PRIMAGAZ	21/12/2010	21/03/2011
	29598/08	SOCIETE METALLURGIQUE LIOTARD FRERES	05/05/2011
MALTA
CM/ResDH(2013)160	26111/02	MIZZI	12/01/2006	12/04/2006
CM/ResDH(2013)161	28040/08	AQUILINA AND OTHERS	14/06/2011	14/09/2011
CM/ResDH(2013)161	17320/10	JOHN ANTHONY MIZZI	22/11/2011	22/02/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)162	38816/07	DADOUCH	20/07/2010	20/10/2010
POLAND
CM/ResDH(2013)163	14348/02	GARYCKI	06/02/2007	06/05/2007
CM/ResDH(2013)163	24860/08	FINSTER	08/02/2011	08/05/2011
CM/ResDH(2013)164	10253/08	GALECKA	18/12/2012	Decision
	20139/08	STASZEWSKI	13/09/2011	Decision
	31176/08	SWIATOPELK-ZAWADZKI	20/11/2012	Decision
	52446/08	GOLA	13/11/2012	Decision
	19174/09	LUZAROWSKI	11/12/2012	Decision
	44002/09	KISIL	11/12/2012	Decision
	47643/09	GERTER	29/01/2013	Decision
	55239/09	SZALATY	29/01/2013	Decision
	62556/09	KOZLOWSKA	27/11/2012	Decision
	24759/10	MARMUZIEWICZ II	11/12/2012	Decision
	43610/10	NEDZEWICZ II	18/12/2012	Decision
	45170/10	KULAWIAK	12/02/2013	Decision
	49252/10	CHRABALOWSKA	27/11/2012	Decision
	59443/10	WROCZYNSKI	15/01/2013	Decision
	6609/11	SAWICKI	18/12/2012	Decision
	42421/11	JABLONSKI XVII	11/12/2012	Decision
	59812/11	LESNIAK III	18/12/2012	Decision
	64016/11	DABROWSKI	22/01/2013	Decision
	72189/11	SWIERCZ	11/12/2012	Decision
	73358/11	WOLOSOWICZ	29/01/2013	Decision

	76536/11	CIESIELSKI	11/12/2012	Decision
	76931/11	WASSERMANN	18/12/2012	Decision
	16544/12	BUDZISZEWSKI	29/01/2013	Decision
	23854/12	SOSZYNSKI	15/01/2013	Decision
PORTUGAL
CM/ResDH(2013)165	48225/08	BEIRES CÔRTE-REAL	11/10/2011	11/01/2011
ROMANIA
CM/ResDH(2013)166	36478/02	JONES	03/02/2009	03/05/2009
CM/ResDH(2013)167	9304/05	BIRZESCU AND OTHERS	25/09/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)167	1231/04	FUNDATIA BUCOVINA MISSION INC. AND FUNDATIA BUCOVINA BUCURESTI	25/09/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)168	59892/00	MASZNI	21/09/2006	21/12/2006
SERBIA
CM/ResDH(2013)169	6156/07	VASOV	13/11/2012	Decision
	12192/07	KOSANIN	29/11/2011	Decision
	21478/07	MILOSAVLJEVIC 28	11/12/2012	Decision
	25335/07	BINJOS	10/01/2012	Decision
	32145/07	NOVAKOVIC	27/09/2011	Decision
	32777/07	VELJOVIĆ	14/09/2010	Decision
	33086/07	DOKIC	20/03/2012	Decision
	39849/07	HAMIDOVIC II	27/09/2011	Decision
	50313/07	JEVTIC	27/09/2011	Decision
	704/08	STEFANOVIC	11/12/2012	Decision
	12909/08	PETKOVIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	13617/08	UGRINOVIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	14400/08	KOJIC AND JOVANOVIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	14414/08	DORDEVIC AND NIKOLIC	27/09/2011	Decision
	14536/08	TODOROVIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	15105/08	PERISIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	15122/08	NIKOLIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	26884/08	LAZIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	31178/08	JEREMIC	20/03/2012	Decision
	37159/08	JOVANOVIC	13/11/2012	Decision
	39346/08	RADULOVIC SOFRONIC	15/01/2013	Decision
	39470/08	BAUMGARTNER AND 3 OTHER APPLICATIONS	13/11/2012	Decision
	45597/08+	ANDRIC AND 49 OTHER APPLICATIONS	10/01/2012	Decision
	45616/08+	TOMIC AND 20 OTHER APPLICATIONS	14/02/2012	Decision
	3716/09+	MILUNOVIC AND CEKRLIC	21/02/2012	Decision
	32635/10	RADIVOJEVIC AND 13 OTHER APPLICATIONS	10/05/2012	Decision
	19572/11	JOVANOVIC	13/11/2012	Decision
SWEDEN
CM/ResDH(2013)170	52077/10	S.F. AND OTHERS	15/05/2012	15/08/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)171	3684/07	STROMBLAD	05/04/2012	05/07/2012
CM/ResDH(2013)172	49801/08	LONN	04/12/2012	Decision
UKRAINE
CM/ResDH(2013)173	50406/08	REDAKTSIYA GAZETY SLAVA SEVASTOPOLYA, KP	19/06/2012	Decision
	28215/10	STEPANOV	26/06/2012	Decision
	22826/11	MALITSKA	11/12/2012	Decision
	31331/06	BURDIYAN	18/09/2012	Decision
	7635/07	BURYAK	18/12/2012	Decision
	17187/07	GUKOVYCH	16/10/2012	Decision
	2930/08	GOLOVKOVA	28/08/2012	Decision
UNITED KINGDOM
CM/ResDH(2013)174	66746/01	CONNORS	27/05/2004	27/08/2004
CM/ResDH(2013)175	24527/08	M.S.	03/05/2012	03/08/2012

Item 4.2

Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) –
Interim report to the Committee of Ministers, for information, on the negotiations on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights
(CM(2013)93-add1)

Decision

The Deputies took note of the interim report of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) on the negotiations on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, as it appears in document CM(2013)93-add1.

Item 4.3

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) –
Abridged report of the 61st meeting (Strasbourg, 18-21 June 2013)

This item was postponed.

Item 6.1

European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) ‒
Committee of Experts on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CS-RPD) ‒
Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on ensuring full inclusion of children and young people with disabilities into society

This item was postponed.

Item 6.2

Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) –
Abridged report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 14-16 May 2013)

(CM(2013)74, CM(2013)74-add1 and CM(2013)74-add2)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the thematic reports by the experts of the CAHROM thematic groups on school attendance of Roma children, in particular Roma girls, with Finland as requesting country and Latvia, Norway and Sweden as partner countries (document CM(2013)74-add1) and on encampment areas and other issues relating to Travellers with Belgium as requesting country and France, Switzerland and the United Kingdom as partner countries (document CM(2013)74-add2);

2. in the light of the above decision, took note of the abridged report of the 5th meeting of the CAHROM (document CM(2013)74), as a whole.

Item 6.3

European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare (EDQM) –
European Committee on Organ Transplantation (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-TO) ‒
Abridged report of the 11th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013)
(CM(2013)85)

Decision

The Deputies took note of the abridged report of the 11th meeting of the European Committee on Organ Transplantation (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-TO), as it appears in document CM(2013)85.

Item 6.4

European Code of Social Security –
Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and the European Code of Social Security ‒
Draft Resolutions CM/ResCSS(2013)… on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Additional Protocol (period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(CM(2013)86)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the conclusions of the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and the European Code of Social Security on the application of the European Code of Social Security and, where applicable, its Additional Protocol, by Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 75 of the European Code of Social Security, as they appear in document CM(2013)86;

2. adopted Resolutions CM/ResCSS(2013)1 to 20, as they appear at Appendices 28 to 47 to the present volume of Decisions;

3. noted that their Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) would resume consideration of the draft resolution on the application of the European Code of Social Security by Greece at its next meeting.

Appendix 1

(Item 1.1)

1177 meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
(Strasbourg, 11 (10 a.m.) September 2013)

Agenda

1.	*General questions*

1.1	Adoption of the agenda

		(CM/Del/OJ(2013)1177)

1.2	Preparation of forthcoming meetings

1.3	Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General

		(SG/Com(2013)1177, SG/Inf(2013)31)

1.4	Report of the Bureau

		(CM/Bur/Del(2013)17)

1.5	Conferences of specialised ministers – State of preparation

		(CM/Inf(2013)27)

2.	*Democracy and political questions*

2.1	The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia

		(CM(2008)150-rev, CM(2008)162, SG/Inf(2008)19, DD(2008)631, SG/Inf(2009)5, SG/Inf(2009)7, CM(2009)PV-prov, CM(2009)PV-add1, CM(2009)PV-add2, SG/Inf(2009)10, SG/Inf(2009)5-add, SG/Inf(2009)9, CM/AS(2009)Quest572, DD(2009)447, SG/Inf(2009)15-final, SG/Inf(2009)5-add2, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1846(2008) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1846-final, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1857(2009) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1857-final, CM(2009)164, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1869(2009) and CM/AS(2010)Rec1869-final, DD(2010)71, DD(2010)95, SG/Inf(2010)7, SG/Inf(2010)8, DD(2010)238, CM/Del/Dec(2010)1090/2.1, SG/Inf(2010)19, DD(2010)559, SG/Inf(2011)8, SG/Inf(2011)24, SG/Inf(2012)5, SG/Inf(2012)28-rev and SG/Inf(2013)13)

2.1bis	Current political questions

	a. Activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability (Item prepared by the GR-DEM on 4.7.2013)

		(GR-DEM(2013)CB7) (CM/Notes/1177/2.1bis of 15.7.2013)

	b. Other questions - Statement by the Representative of San Marino

2.2	Situation in Cyprus

3.	*Parliamentary Assembly*

3.1	Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

	a. Written Question No. 642 by Mr Mogens Jensen: “The situation of Burmese refugees in Romania”

		(CM/Notes/1177/3.1a of 14.8.2013)

(Item postponed)

4.	*Human rights*

H46-1	Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Adoption of final resolutions

		(CM/Notes/1177/H46-1 of 30.8.2013)

4.1	Exchange of views with Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights

		(DD(2013)906, DD(2013)923 and DD(2013)925)

4.2	Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) – Interim report to the Committee of Ministers, for information, on the negotiations on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights

		(CM(2013)93-add1) (CM/Notes/1177/4.2 of 23.8.2013)

4.3	European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) – Abridged report of the 61st meeting (Strasbourg, 18-21 June 2013)

		(CM(2013)99, CM(2013)99-add1, CM(2013)99-add2rev, CM(2013)99-add3, CM(2013)99-add4 and CM(2013)99-add5) (CM/Notes/1177/4.3 of 23.8.2013)

(Item postponed)

4.4	Exchange of views with Professor Luis Jimena Quesada, President of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR)

6.	*Social cohesion*

6.1	European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) ‒ Committee of Experts on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CS-RPD) ‒ Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on ensuring full inclusion of children and young people with disabilities into society (Item to be prepared by the GR-SOC on 10.10.2013)

		(CM(2013)87)

(Item postponed)

6.2	Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) – Abridged report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 14-16 May 2013) (Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

		(CM(2013)74, CM(2013)74-add1 and CM(2013)74-add2) (CM/Notes/1177/6.2 of 26.8.2013)

6.3	European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare (EDQM) – European Committee on Organ Transplantation (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-TO) ‒ Abridged report of the 11th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013) (Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

		(CM(2013)85) (CM/Notes/1177/6.3 of 26.8.2013)

6.4	European Code of Social Security – Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and the European Code of Social Security ‒ Draft Resolutions CM/ResCSS(2013)… on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Additional Protocol (period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012) (Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

		(CM(2013)86) (CM/Notes/1177/6.4 of 15.7.2013)

13.	*Any other business*

Appendix 2

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)150

Twenty-two cases against Bulgaria

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.	Date of decision
DIMITROVA-MIHOVA AND 9 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 8250/05	10/05/2012
KARAVASILEVA AND 11 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 10450/05	21/02/2012
KIROVI AND 5 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 27466/05	11/09/2012
SLAVOV AND OTHERS AND 6 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 41095/05	10/05/2012
KIURKCHIAN, Application No. 45661/05	10/01/2012
DIMITROVA, Application No. 45664/05	04/10/2011
RADOMIROV AND RADOMIROVA-ERESHTENKO, Application No. 101/06	05/07/2011
NENKOV, Application No. 2671/06	30/08/2011
FIRKOV, Application No. 2731/06	31/05/2011
SOTIROV, Application No. 19985/06	03/07/2012
HEROS NORD OOD, Application No. 20405/06	30/08/2011
TAVITYAN, Application No. 24361/06	30/08/2011
STOLAROVI, Application No. 44503/06	28/06/2011
METODIEV, Application No. 6542/07	11/09/2012
BOCHUKOV AND OTHERS, Application No. 6942/07	20/03/2012
FRENKOV AND 8 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 7100/07	20/03/2012
VASILEVI AND 8 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 15423/07	03/07/2012
TSONEVA, Application No. 34587/07	11/09/2012
PETROVI, Application No. 36863/07	10/05/2012
FRENKEVA AND 2 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 4925/08	15/01/2013
NESHKOV (IV), Application No. 26863/08	30/08/2011
SIMEONOV, Application No. 35482/08	10/05/2012

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided to strike these cases from its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix 3

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)151

Dodov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 59548/00, judgment of 17 January 2008, final on 17 April 2008)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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 violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is 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 the 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(2013)728);

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

on the implementation of the judgment of the ECHR in the case of

Dodov v. Bulgaria

Application No. 59548/00

Judgment of 17 January 2008

Final on 17 April 2008

The facts

The case relates to failure of the authorities to offer in practice effective judicial remedies allowing to establish the circumstances of the disappearance of the applicant’s mother and to engage the responsibility of the persons and institutions concerned (violation of Article 2 of the Convention) and excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the action for compensation lodged by the applicant (violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).

Individual measures

a) The compensation was duly transferred to the applicant’s account on 9 July 2008.

b) Current state of civil proceedings

Since the issue of the ECHR judgment under the present case, the Sofia City Court continued to review the applicant’s civil claim in a number of sessions (more than eight). As the proceedings were governed by the repealed Civil Procedure Code, the applicant was allowed to present and require new evidence throughout the entire first-instance procedure. He has done so in every session as well as via additional requests and has required numerous check-ups and documents from various institutions. This significantly hampered the timely review of the case. Furthermore, three sessions (in 2009 and 2010) were postponed due to illness of his legal representative and respectively to other omissions in the documentation presented by the applicant. Meanwhile the applicant also contested some of the court’s rulings in front of higher instances which additionally slowed down the proceedings.

In 2011, the applicant requested modification of his claim by decreasing its amount, thus changing its jurisdiction to another court. As a consequence, the claim fell under the competence of the Sofia Regional Court (“SRS”). On 24 February 2012, the Sofia City Court issued an order by which the case was transferred to SRS. Since May 2012 until now, there have been four sessions of SRS and a decision is awaited in the nearest future.

The government notes that the SRS decision will be subject to appeal in front of the higher instances and the date of the final decision may not be predicted exactly. The obvious attempts of the applicant to slow down the procedure with every procedural means available should be noted though. The government observes that it will continue the close follow-up of the court case

c) Disciplinary sanctions

None of the staff working in the Home for Elderly People with Dementia in Kniajevo at the time and having any connection with Ms Stoyanova’s disappearance are currently employed in this institution. The orderly who accompanied Ms Stoyanova during her disappearance is deceased. The doorkeeper’s employment is terminated.

It should be noted that, according to Article 194 of the Bulgarian Labour Code, disciplinary sanctions may be imposed within two months after detection of the breach of labour obligations and not later than one year after it was committed. This provision was applicable at the time of Ms Stoyanova’s disappearance as well. The terms in it are preclusive. Considering the above, the failure of the director of the home at the time to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the responsible personnel may not be remedied because the imposition of disciplinary penalties is time-barred.

General measures

a) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

The translation of the judgment in Bulgarian is available on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/47/73/.

The judgment was expressly disseminated by letters from the Procedural Representation of Bulgaria to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Court of Cassation, the Sofia regional, city and appellate courts, the Ministry of Labour and Social Care, the Ministry of Interior and the Sofia Municipality.

b) Amendments in legislation in view of the length of proceedings

The present judgment relates to the pilot judgments against Bulgaria concerning length of proceedings. The general measures taken by the government in this regard are included in the action plans presented to the Committee of Ministers under the Dimitrov and Hamanov and Finger group of cases.

c) Positive duty to make available judicial remedies capable of establishing the facts and holding accountable those responsible for imperilling the life of a person placed in a nursing home

The Court found that despite the availability in Bulgarian law of three avenues of redress – criminal, disciplinary and civil – in the present case the authorities did not secure an effective possibility to establish the facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's mother and hold accountable the persons or institutions that breached their duties. The main problems pointed out by the ECHR concerned difficulties to establish the body responsible for the functioning of the nursing home as well as a lack of proper job descriptions of the personnel. On the one hand, the Court observed that “the regulations in force at the relevant time dated from 1965 and apparently did not reflect changes in State administrative structures”. These old regulations were in force until 1999, when new regulations replaced them, taking into account the new administrative structure of the State. The Court also noted that one of the prosecutors who dealt with the case expressed the opinion that the duties of the nursing home staff had not been clearly regulated, which made it impossible to determine any criminal liability.

* * *

It should be mentioned that there are a number of measures which have been taken with regard to potential omissions in the management, training, control or definition of duties of the different categories of staff in the nursing homes.

In 2002, amendments were made in the Social Assistance Act which established a new structure – the Social Assistance Agency (SAA). The functions of SAA include:

· providing of social aid and social services,

· co-ordination of the planning and development of social services,

· control over the application of established criteria and standards for the provision of social services,

· opening, closing and changes in the type and capacity of the specialised institutions and social services within the community,

· keeping of a register of social service providers, etc.

The Inspectorate to the Executive Director of SAA performs specialised control over the application of the criteria and standards by the specialised institutions for social services as well as by the service providers within the community. In case there are breaches of the respective legislative provisions, the inspectors are entitled to apply compulsory administrative measures. If the breach is committed by a municipal institution or provider, the respective mayor is also informed in order to take the necessary measures for curing it. The Inspectorate issues compulsory instructions and may propose deletion from the Register of Social Service Providers kept in SAA as well.

SAA elaborates and imposes compulsory methodical instructions and guidelines and organises trainings and supervisions which foster the social service providers’ activities. All instructions and guidelines are published on the website of the Agency.[2]

The subsequent changes made in SAA and the Rules for its application in 2003 became an additional guarantee for the quality of social services as they explicitly regulated the order and conditions for starting, changes in capacity or terminating of the provision of social services and introduced for the first time criteria and quality standards for the services provided in specialised institutions and the community. Thus minimal state criteria and standards became mandatory for all service providers and included requirements for material conditions, personnel, food, healthcare, educational services and information, organising of the spare time and personal contacts.

The legislative amendments from 2003 also envisaged for the first time the preparation of individual plans for users which formulated the goals to be achieved in each separate case in order to improve their quality of life. The individual plan includes activities connected to everyday, healthcare, educational, rehabilitation and other needs, including those connected to spare time and contacts with relatives and loved ones. Each individual plan is assessed and updated every six months. If the user is in a specialised institution, the plan also includes measures for removal from the institution and social inclusion.

Another aspect in the legislative changes from 2003 was the establishment of public councils whose task was to carry out control, support and help with regard to activities concerning social assistance.

At present, the conditions and order for the use of social services in the homes for elderly with dementia are regulated by SAA, the Rules for its application as well as by a number of methodologies issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and the Social Assistance Agency, including but not limited to:

1. Methodology of Social Services for Elderly People;

2. Methodology for Determining of the Positions of Staff in Specialised Institutions and Social Services

in the Community;

3. Methodological Guidelines for Work of Specialised Institutions for Social Services and Social

Services in the Community in Execution of the Standards and Criteria for Catering;

4. Methodological Guidelines for Work of Specialised Institutions for Social Services and Social
Services in the Community in Execution of the Standards and Criteria for Healthcare, etc.

With regard to the functioning of the Home for Elderly People with Dementia in Kniajevo, a number of steps were taken in order to apply the abovementioned legislative acts and measures and to ensure the security and well-being of the users of social services there. The management of the Home elaborated and imposed Internal Order Rules, the Internal Labour Rules, Order for Control of the Access to the Home, Procedure for Submission of Complaints and Signals. All users have concluded contracts for use of social services which clearly define their rights and obligations. Furthermore, and in line with Bulgarian legislation, there are detailed job descriptions for every position in the Home – orderlies, nurses, rehabilitators, doctors, guards, which fully describe their obligations towards the persons using social services in the home. The director of the Home monitors strictly the training and instructions of the staff and performs direct control over their activities.

The Public Council to the respective municipality performs inspections for the application of State standards and good practices on a regular basis and upon necessity. Regular controls are also performed by the Social Assistance Agency via the Inspectorate and by other State institutions.

The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria believes that the measures taken have fulfilled the requirements that arise from the Court’s judgment and that as a result similar violations will be prevented in the future. In view of the above, the government considers that the supervision over the present case should be discontinued and the case should be closed.

Sofia, 13 May 2013

Appendix 4

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)152

Kirilov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 15158/02, judgment of 22 May 2008, final on 22 August 2008)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Bilan d’action (French only)

Affaire Kirilov c. Bulgarie

(Requête n° 15158/02)

Arrêt du 22 mai 2008

Définitif le 22 août 2008

I. Des violations de la Convention

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a constaté des violations de l’article 5 §§ 3 et 4 de la Convention.

II. Description de l’affaire : Cette affaire concerne le droit à la liberté et à la sécurité au sens de l’article 5 de la Convention. Le requérant se plaignait en particulier de ne pas avoir comparu devant les juridictions ayant statué sur sa détention provisoire. La Cour a constaté une violation de l’article 5 § 3, parce que le requérant n’a pas comparu devant l’autorité judiciaire qui statuait sur son maintien en détention provisoire ni au moment de son placement initial le 9 décembre 2002, ni jusqu’à la fin de sa détention relevant de l’article 5 § 1 c).

La Cour a considéré aussi que faute d’avoir assuré à l’intéressé la possibilité de comparaître en personne lors de l’examen de ses recours contre la détention, le respect des garanties de l’article 5 § 4 de la Convention n’a pas été assuré en l’espèce. En conséquence, la Cour a conclu que l’article 5 § 4 de la Convention a été aussi violé.

Les violations constatées par la Cour ont eu lieu en 2002 et 2003.

III. Les mesures individuelles

La République de Bulgarie a versé au requérant les sommes suivantes, converties en levs bulgares : la somme de €1 000 (mille euros) pour dommage moral et la somme de €700 (sept cents euros) pour frais et dépens, conformément au dispositif de l’arrêt rendu par la Cour. Le versement des sommes a été effectué dans le délai indiqué.

Suite à la condamnation du requérant en première instance le 11 février 2003, il n’est plus détenu au titre de la détention provisoire.

En conséquence, aucune mesure individuelle supplémentaire ne semble nécessaire.

IV. Les mesures générales

1. Violation de l’article 5 § 3

La violation de l’article 5 § 3 constatée par la Cour européenne a pour origine la méconnaissance des dispositions internes pertinentes concernant le placement en détention provisoire d’un prévenu. Il convient de noter qu’en vertu des articles 152a et 152b du Code de procédure pénale de 1974 (CPP de 1974), tels qu’applicables au moment du placement en détention du requérant en janvier 2002, le placement et l’examen des recours au stade de l’instruction préliminaire sont effectués par un tribunal après comparution du prévenu. Le nouveau Code de procédure pénale de 2005 (CPP de 2005), entré en vigueur en 2006, reprend en des termes similaires ces dispositions.

En conséquence, le gouvernement estime que la violation de l’article 5 § 3 est un cas isolé lié au non‑respect du droit interne et qu’aucune mesure générale n’est nécessaire pour prévenir des violations similaires en dehors de la publication et diffusion de l’arrêt (voir ci-dessous).

2. Violation de l’article 5 § 4

La violation constatée par la Cour européenne est due au fait que le requérant n’a pu à aucun moment comparaître lors de l’examen de ses recours contre la détention au stade judiciaire de la procédure pénale contre lui.

Il convient de rappeler qu’à l’époque des faits, les dispositions internes pertinentes prévoyaient que durant la phase judiciaire du procès, le tribunal compétent pouvait statuer sur la mesure de détention soit au cours d’une audience sur le fond, soit en chambre du conseil (articles 39, 255 alinéa 2 et 304 alinéa 1 (5) du CPP de 1974). Les ordonnances ainsi rendues étaient susceptibles d’un recours devant la juridiction supérieure qui statuait sans tenir d’audience et sans citer les parties, excepté dans les cas où elle jugeait nécessaire de tenir une audience publique (articles 346-348 du CPP de 1974).

Le gouvernement observe que les dispositions actuellement en vigueur concernant l’examen d’un recours contre la détention provisoire au stade judiciaire d’une procédure pénale prévoit explicitement la tenue d’une audience par le tribunal compétent (en l’occurrence, le tribunal saisi du fond de l’affaire). Le tribunal se prononce par une ordonnance susceptible d’appel devant le tribunal supérieur (article 270, alinéa 2 du CPP de 2006).

En revanche, le CPP de 2006 (article 345, alinéa 1 du CPP de 2005) ne prévoit toujours pas la tenue obligatoire d’une audience par le tribunal supérieur saisi d’un recours contre une ordonnance du tribunal du fond, même quand celle-ci concerne une demande de libération. En effet, le droit interne laisse à l’appréciation du tribunal supérieur de se prononcer en chambre de conseil ou d’organiser une audience.

En l’absence d’une disposition légale prévoyant explicitement la présence du prévenu devant le tribunal supérieur lors de l’examen d’un appel contre une ordonnance refusant la libération au stade judiciaire, les autorités bulgares ont envisagé des mesures de diffusion supplémentaires ayant pour cible les tribunaux internes. La Cour suprême de cassation a envoyé une lettre circulaire aux juridictions de deuxième instance afin d’attirer leur attention sur les exigences suivantes découlant de la jurisprudence de la Cour (et en particulier des arrêts rendus contre la Bulgarie) :

- La nécessité d’assurer à tous les stades de la procédure de contestation de la légalité d’une détention le respect du principe de l’égalité des armes et du principe du contradictoire. Le procureur ne devrait pas avoir le privilège d’adresser au tribunal des commentaires auxquels le détenu n’a pas eu l’occasion de répondre et tous les commentaires du procureur doivent être communiqués au détenu et celui-ci doit pouvoir y répondre.

- Quand elles examinent un appel contre l’ordonnance relative à la détention provisoire rendue par le tribunal saisi du fond de l’affaire, les juridictions d’appel doivent évaluer de manière très attentive la nécessité d’entendre le détenu en personne.

L’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a été traduit en bulgare et publié sur le site du ministère de la Justice. Il est été analysé et envoyé à l’Institut national de la justice pour information.

De l’avis des autorités bulgares, ces mesures générales sont suffisantes pour prévenir de nouvelles violations de l’article 5 § 4.

3. Conclusion

Les autorités estiment que le Comité des Ministres pourrait envisager de clore la surveillance de l’exécution de cette affaire.

Appendix 5

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)153

Angel Angelov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 51343/99, judgment of 15 February 2007, final on 15 May 2007)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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 Angel Angelov v. Bulgaria

Application No. 51343/99, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

1. Convention violation found

The case concerns the lack of access to a court due to the unmotivated dismissal of the applicant's petition for review (cassation) by the Supreme Court of Cassation in 1999 (violation of Article 6 § 1). The violation of the applicant’s rights was apparently due to a judicial mistake leading the Supreme Court of Cassation to believe that his appeal was time-barred.

The European Court noted that the order dismissing the applicant’s petition as time-barred could not be seen as a justified enforcement of a legitimate procedural limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court, because it did not indicate the dates on which the relevant time-limit had started to run and expired and the date on which the appeal had been submitted.

2. Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained. The compensation awarded was transferred to the applicant’s account on 2 August 2007.

Since 2007 until now, no request for reopening from Angel Angelov has been received in the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation. The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation has not requested the reopening of the proceedings. By letter of 4 January 2012 of the Plovdiv Regional Court, the Bulgarian authorities were informed that the case-file has been destroyed following the expiration of the period during which a case file is kept in the archives of the court. The absence of the case file makes it impossible for the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation to file a request to the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen the case.

In these circumstances, no further individual measures are possible in this case.

3. General measures

a) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

The translation of the judgment is available on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/

The translation of the judgment was sent to the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Prosecution of Cassation through a circular letter drawing their attention to the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.

By a letter of 9 January 2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation has indicated that the judgment in the case of Angel Angelov had been made available to all the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation through the internal information system of the court.

b) Practice concerning decisions dismissing requests for reopening of criminal proceedings

i. Reopening of criminal proceedings

The reopening of criminal cases – a procedure similar to the review proceedings described in the Angel Angelov judgment, is currently regulated in Chapter 33[3] of the Criminal Procedure Code.

By a letter of 9 January 2012, the Supreme Court of Cassation has provided a detailed description of its current practice with respect to the decisions dismissing petitions for reopening.

The verification of compliance with the terms and preconditions for admissibility of the petitions is done by each of the three chairpersons of the departments in the criminal division of the Supreme Court of Cassation. After the verification, instructions shall be made which propose the reopening of proceedings or a refusal to reopen the proceedings. If there are grounds for refusal to initiate proceedings for reopening, the chairman of the department shall prepare an order containing the following details: name of the chairman of the department; the date of issuance of the order; the grounds for inadmissibility and other motives. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, this decision shall not be subject to subsequent control. There is an opportunity for a new referral to the Supreme Court of Cassation, if the reasons for the refusal are removed.

If any inaccuracies are detected in the order, like false circumstances or wrongly calculated deadlines, the person may apply to the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Cassation. After verification, the President of the Criminal Division may cancel the order of the chairman of the Department and initiate a reopening of the proceedings. Such a possibility was available in practice to the applicant Angelov after the notification of the order dismissing the petition for revision.

In more complex cases, the President of the Criminal Division shall initiate proceedings which are heard by a three-judge panel, according to Art. 426 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Chapter 33 (in the absence of special rules, the rules of cassation proceedings apply).

ii. Cassation appeal in criminal proceedings

The compliance of the cassation appeal with the formal requirements of the Criminal Procedure Court is to be examined by a judge from the second instance court. If the judge decides that a cassation appeal does not meet the above-mentioned formal requirements, the interested party may appeal his or her order before a panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation.

The established practice in the areas of law enforcement and drafting of legal acts provides full guarantees for parties to know the reasons for a refusal to reopen proceedings and in case of disagreement with them to submit a new application for reopening.

Conclusion

No other measures including any legislative amendments seem to be necessary for execution of the judgment.

Appendix 6

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)154

Twenty-five cases against Cyprus

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on
62242/00	GREGORIOU	25/03/2003	09/07/2003
34579/05	A.J. HADJIHANNA BROS (TOURIST ENTERPRISES) LTD AND HADJIHANNAS	18/01/2007	18/04/2007
37885/04	CHARALAMBIDES	15/01/2009	15/04/2009
43151/04	CHARALAMBOUS ARESTI	19/07/2007	19/10/2007
30282/06	CHRISTODOULOU	16/07/2009	16/10/2009
6470/02	CICHOWICZ	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
35128/02	CLERIDES AND KYNIGOS	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
21929/04	DOUGLAS	17/07/2008	01/12/2008
15940/02	GAVRIELIDES	01/06/2006	01/09/2006
73802/01	GAVRIELIDOU AND OTHERS	06/04/2006	06/07/2006
2647/02	JOSEPHIDES	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
33761/02	JOSEPHIDES	06/12/2007	02/06/2008
2669/02	KYRIAKIDIS AND KYRIAKIDOU	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
68448/01	LERIOS	23/03/2006	23/06/2006
14790/06	MYLONAS	11/12/2008	06/07/2009
30503/03	ODYSSEOS	08/03/2007	08/06/2007
2418/05	OUZOUNIAN BARRET	18/01/2007	09/07/2007
20429/02	PAPAKOKKINOU	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
4403/03	PAPAKOKKINOU	14/12/2006	14/03/2006
20435/02	PAROUTIS	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
19106/03	PASTELLIS	02/03/2006	02/06/2006
47119/99	SHACOLAS	04/05/2006	04/08/2006
35698/03	TENGERAKIS	09/11/2006	09/02/2007
21322/02	TSAGGARIS	19/01/2006	19/04/2006
38775/02	WALDNER	19/01/2006	19/04/2006

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

- 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 the 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)675-rev);

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 (28 May 2013)

Gregoriou v. Cyprus

(Application No. 62242/2000, judgment of 25/03/2003, final on 09/07/03)

25 cases of length of judicial proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

Introduction

1. These cases all concern excessive length of civil proceedings running from prior to 1 January 1989 (the date on which the recognition by Cyprus of the right of individual petition took effect) up to the present (violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).

2. The cases of Clerides and Kynigos (Application No. 35128/02), Gavrielides (Application No. 15940/02), Gavrielidou and others (Application No. 73802/01), Paroutis (Application No. 20435/02), Lerios (Application No. 68448/01) and Ouzounian Barret (Application No. 2418/05) also concern the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the excessive length of judicial proceedings (violations of Article 13).

3. The latest judgment of this group was delivered on 16 July 2009 and became final on 16 October 2009 (i.e. Christodoulou v. Cyprus). Following this judgment, no other judgments have been issued by the European Court regarding excessive length of judicial proceedings in the determination of civil rights and obligations and/or lack of an effective domestic remedy for the excessive length of those proceedings. On 23 September 2010, the European Court rejected as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of effective remedies an application for an alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of judicial proceedings (see further below).

4. This document details measures which have been taken by the Cypriot authorities. The primary issues to be addressed are (i) the improvement of the efficiency of the judicial system in order to prevent future similar violations (Article 6 § 1), and; (ii) the establishment of an effective remedy (in practice and theory) which will satisfy those who have suffered from excessive length of judicial proceedings (Article 13).

Individual measures

5. In all cases for which a violation of Article 6 § 1 and/or 13 was found, proceedings in domestic courts are closed except for that of Shacolas v. Cyprus (Application No. 47119/1999). In the Shacolas v. Cyprus case, the appeal proceedings have been concluded and the appeal court ordered a retrial. However, a complaint by any of the parties of this case respecting the length of proceedings may be made under the new law (Law 2(I)/2010) (see further under general measures below). The law applies to cases which were pending at any stage before it came into force, thus, applicants whose proceedings are concluded can still benefit from this remedy.

6. In all cases, the applicants were paid the amount awarded by the judgments.

7. The government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General measures

I. Publication and dissemination

8. Several of the judgments from this group were promptly disseminated, with an explanatory letter, by the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent, to judicial authorities, the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, the Cyprus Bar Association and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Parliamentary Committees. On 10 March 2010, the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent's Office circulated to all law officers within the Government Agent's Office and the Supreme Court a list of all judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Cyprus concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings.

9. Summaries of several of the judgments from this group in which the Court found a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention due to the length of judicial proceedings, were published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (see, for example, Kyriakidis and Kyriakidou v. Cyprus, 2006, 2nd issue). Summaries of several of the judgments from this group, in which the Court also found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, were published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (see, for example, Gavrielides v. Cyprus in 2006, 2nd issue).

10. The judgment in the case of Paroutis v. Cyprus was translated into Greek and published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (2006, 2nd issue). Charalambides v. Cyprus, Charalambous Aresti v. Cyprus and Josephides v. Cyprus have also been translated into Greek.

11. Several judgments of this group and their translations have also been inserted at the Government Agent’s (Human Rights Sector) website at www.law.gov.cy.

2. Violations of Article 6 § 1

12. Regulatory measures (in particular a series of circulars issued by the Supreme Court from
1995-2003) were adopted for the prevention of similar violations.

13. A number of other measures have been taken while others remain to be implemented:

(a) Measures taken:

(i) One judge of the Supreme Court has been assigned to follow up statistics concerning older cases and to inform the Supreme Court at regular intervals of the progress of judicial proceedings. Statistics followed up by a Supreme Court Judge and informing the Supreme Court of the progress of civil and criminal cases before district courts, show that the number of older cases has diminished and that there is a clear trend of dealing more efficiently with both old and new cases (for further details see under “statistics” below).

(ii) The jurisdiction of single judges in the district courts has been increased. This has reduced the amount of cases in which judges have to sit together to hear a case and has therefore saved court time. In particular, before the relevant change, civil cases were heard in district courts by courts composed of 2 or 3 judges which had unlimited jurisdiction to try all civil cases. Now, unlimited jurisdiction in civil cases has been granted to the judge acting as President of the district court. At the same time, the jurisdiction of other judges, namely, of senior district judges and district judges has been increased so that senior district judges can now hear civil actions in which the claim is up to €500,000 and district court judges can hear civil actions in which the claim is up to €100,000.

(iii) It is to be noted that arrangements have been made by the Supreme Court with effect on 1 January 2012, for monitoring reserved judgments/interim decisions. If judgments or interim decisions stand reserved for more than 6 or 2 months respectively, the President of the Supreme Court addresses the matter by letter to the judge in question, which is also filed in his/her personal file and taken into account respecting promotion. This is a step that precedes the procedure provided in the rules, under which cases can be fixed ex proprio motu for directions by the Supreme Court, if a judgment or interim decision stands reserved for more than 9 or 3 months respectively. The step has produced good results as the average number of judgments reserved for more than 6 and 9 months has dropped by 50%, and that of interim decisions reserved for more than 2 months has dropped by 60%.

(iv) Disciplinary measures are taken against judges who do not comply with Supreme Court directions provided under the Rules of Procedure for the timely issue of judgments. The competent disciplinary body is the Supreme Council of Judicature, composed of all the Supreme Court judges. No disciplinary measures have been taken so far, as judges always comply with the Supreme Court’s directions for the timely issue of judgments. In all cases in which judgments and interim decisions were not issued within the time-limits of 6 and 2 months respectively prescribed in the rules, and continued to stand reserved, for more than 9 months in the case of judgments, and 3 months in the cases of interim decisions, the Supreme Court’s resulting directions under the rules for their issue within a specified time were fully complied with and thus no disciplinary measures were taken.

(v) Interest on compensation now runs from the time of the cause of the action, encouraging litigants not to delay proceedings.

(vi) Judges attend regular seminars on human rights issues in rotation, subsequently feeding back information to other judges. The majority of judges are well informed of the European Court's judgments and the problem of excessive length of proceedings.

(vii) The old stenograph system has been replaced with the digital recording system with respect to district courts when dealing with criminal law cases whose hearing is expected to last a long time and with respect to all assizes courts. The results are remarkable. Court minutes are automatically de-stenotyped and finalised within two days after the completion of the hearing and are stored digitally.

(viii) There has been an increase in the number of judges appointed to family and assize courts.

(ix) The Budget for 2010 (approved by the legislature on 1 January 2010) made provision for six additional judges at district courts. The posts of four District Court judges, a Senior District Court Judge, and a District Court President were filled in early January 2010.

(b) Statistics to demonstrate the impact of the above measures taken:

On 31 December 2009, at Nicosia district court, there were 1 555 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On
31 December 2010, the number of those cases was reduced to 1 093 and on 31 October 2011 it was further reduced to 958.

On 31 December 2010, at Nicosia district court, there were 1 172 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On
31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 958.

On 31 December 2009, at Limassol district court, there were 842 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On
31 December 2010, their number was reduced to 493. And on 31 December 2011, it was further reduced to 274.

On 31 December 2010, at Limassol district court, there were 731 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On
31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 503.

On 31 December 2009, at Paphos district court, there were 410 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On
31 December 2010, their number was reduced to 246 and on 31 December 2011 it was further reduced to 111.

On 31 December 2010, at Paphos district court, there were 448 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On
31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 280.

On 31 December 2009 at Larnaka – Ammochostos district court, there were 292 pending civil cases lodged in 2007. On 31 December 2010, their number was reduced to 126 and on 31 December 2011 it was further reduced to 59.

On 31 December 2010, at Larnaka – Ammochostos district court, there were 317 pending civil cases lodged in 2008. On 31 December 2011, their number was reduced to 163.

In total, on 31 December 2009, there were 3 099 pending civil cases (in all district courts) lodged in 2007. Their number was reduced to 1 286 as of 31 December 2011. On 31 December 2010 there were 2 668 pending civil cases lodged in 2008 whose number was reduced to 1 904 as of 31 December 2011.

Whilst this group of cases concerns excessive delay in civil proceedings, it is also interesting to note in this context that some of the measures taken have also had a positive effect in reducing delays in criminal cases. Respecting district court criminal cases, there were, as of 31 December 2008, 239 pending cases lodged with the courts in 2006, and 4 170 lodged in 2007. Their number was reduced from 239 cases to 21 as of 2009, to 4 as of 31 December 2010, and to nil as of 31 December 2011. The number of criminal cases lodged with the courts in 2007 was reduced from 4 170 to 239 as of 31 December 2009, to 20 as of
31 December 2010, and to 1 case as of 31 December 2011. As of 31 December 2009, the number of criminal cases lodged with the courts in 2008 was 2 502, and this was reduced to 275, as of 31 December 2010 and to 26, as of 31 December 2011. As of 31 December 2010 the number of criminal cases lodged with the courts in 2009 was 3 213, and this was reduced to 755 as of 31 December 2011.

The Cypriot authorities believe that the measures already taken (as set out above) have achieved the results needed to avoid similar violations in the future. Nevertheless, the Cypriot authorities will continue their work in this area and also plan to implement the following measures in the near future to further improve and increase the efficiency of the judicial system.

(i) The group of Supreme Court judges to which the Full Bench of the Supreme Court assigned the revision of the Civil Procedure Rules has completed its work and the draft text of the revised, simplified Rules has been submitted to the Full Bench for discussion and exchange of views. The Supreme Court is in the process of examining in detail one by one the draft revised rules submitted to it, for effecting any necessary adjustments to tackle problems which may arise in cases pending in the courts when the rules enter into force. The translation of the revised rules into English has been completed and the Supreme Court examines also in parallel with the above task, the English translation of each rule to ensure that it imports the meaning correctly.

(ii) Computerisation of the Judicial Service is envisaged and will be implemented in two phases: first in the Supreme Court followed by Nicosia District Court, with the subsequent extension to all domestic courts.

3. Violation of Article 13

(a) Legislative measures

14. The Cypriot Parliament has adopted a Law (Law 2(I)/2010) providing a domestic remedy for instances of excessive length of civil and administrative proceedings, at all levels of jurisdiction, which came into force on 5 February 2010. Persons who consider that their right to determination of civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time has been violated may institute a complaint either when the relevant proceedings have been concluded by a final court judgment or when they are still pending. They must institute this complaint within one year of the law coming into force.

(b) Case law of the European Court of Human Rights

15. For a detailed analysis of the new law, see the admissibility decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Panayi v. Cyprus (Application No. 46370/09). In this decision, the European Court stated that “[it] is satisfied, in view of the legislative provisions as they stand, that the aggregate of remedies provided by Law 2(I)/2010 in cases of excessively long proceedings in civil and administrative cases that have been concluded or are pending at first instance or on appeal is effective in the sense that the remedies are in principle capable of both preventing the continuation of the alleged violation of the right to a hearing without undue delay and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred”.

16. The Court dismissed the above application as inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the facts occurred before the remedy was in place and as such, under s.5(2) of the Law, the remedy had been available to the applicant for a year from the date of the entry into force of the law. It can be taken from this decision, therefore, that the remedy instituted by the Cypriot authorities is considered effective in principle.

(c) Domestic judicial practice

17. As this new law came into force relatively recently, the Cypriot authorities have indicated that it is too early to have domestic case law on its implementation. This is likely to take some time, considering also that a large number of cases seeking compensation from the Republic of Cyprus are settled.

18. However, there has been one case which was decided by the district court by virtue of the new law. The district court dismissed the action as it did not find that under the circumstances the period of four years and a half for determination of the relevant proceedings exceeded the reasonable time requirement of
Article 6 (1) of the Convention. The plaintiffs have lodged an appeal against this judgment which is pending for determination by the Supreme Court. More recently four other similar cases have also been lodged with the domestic courts. Efforts for securing a settlement in one of those have been unsuccessful and as a result, the case was heard and the court reserved its judgment. The other three cases are set for hearing.

Conclusion

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case.

Appendix 7

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)155

Two cases against the Czech Republic

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Bergmann, Application No. 8857/08, judgment of 27 October 2011, final on 27 January 2012

Prodelalova, Application No. 40094/08, judgment of 20 December 2011, final on 20 February 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

- 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 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.

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 8857/08 – Bergmann v. the Czech Republic

and Application No. 40094/08 – Prodělalová v. the Czech Republic

Action report submitted by the Czech Government on 3 December 2012

In its two judgments of 27 October and 20 December 2011, the Court found a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for family life protected by Article 8 of the Convention in disputes over parental contacts with minor children. According to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the judgments became final on 27 January 2012 and 20 March 2012 respectively.

The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers about the individual and general measures of execution of the judgments.[4]

I. Individual measures

In both cases, the violation of the Convention reposed in the State (either administrative or judicial) authorities’ failure in the course of the proceedings on the determination of contact between a parent and a child. Besides that, in Prodělalová, the Court found excessive the delays that had occurred during the proceedings from the part of the national courts. However, in neither of the cases did the Court review the very content of the national courts’ final conclusions on the determination of the applicants’ contacts with their children.

In particular, while in Bergmann, the Hradec Králové Regional Court decided as early as on 7 February 2007 that the contact between the applicant and his child be forbidden (this judgment became final on 12 March 2007), in Prodělalová the proceedings were still pending at the time of the publication of the Court’s judgment. Nevertheless, in this case the Court noted that the restoration of the applicant’s relationship with her children was not conceivable anymore. The government should add that on 17 February 2012 the Ostrava Regional Court confirmed, to its full extent, the Bruntál District Court’s judgment of 16 August 2010 by which the applicant’s contact with her children was forbidden and the applicant was deprived of her parental responsibility in relation to the children; the regional court’s judgment became final on 11 April 2012.

Taken into account that both relevant sets of proceedings, the particular procedural aspects of which had been criticised by the Court, have already ended and that in both cases the contact between the applicants and their children has been forbidden, the government is convinced that there are no individual measures to be adopted in the applicants’ cases.

II. General measures

First of all, the government recalls that in both judgments the violation of Article 8 of the Convention lay in the State authorities’ failure to exhaust all available measures which could have been reasonably expected from them in order to secure the respect for the applicants’ parental rights. For instance, in Bergmann the Court observed that the State authorities adopted hardly any measures of mediation, of assistance or of a supervisory nature; these could have been an admonition of a parent, an imposition of supervision over a minor or of a duty to make use of an assistance of an expert counselling centre as provided for by Sections 12 and 13 of the Act on the Social and Legal Protection of Children and Section 43 of the Family Act. In Prodělalová, the Court criticised mainly an excessive length of the court proceedings, in particular, the period of two and half years during which the applicant’s contact with her children was forbidden by an interim measure. However the Court also mentioned that during this time national courts had adopted no measures of mediation or assistance. It stems from the Court’s reasoning that the national courts had at their disposal measures of mediation and assistance as provided for by Sections 100 (3) and 110 (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Soon after the delivery of the Court’s judgments, the Ministry of Justice (“the MoJ”) published the translated versions of the judgments on its Internet site. In order to prevent, in the light of the judgments at hand, violation of the relevant provision of the Convention in the future, other steps have been taken by the Ministry of Labour and of Social Affairs (“the MoLSA”) in respect of child welfare authorities and by the MoJ in respect of the national courts.

A. Measures adopted in respect of child welfare authorities

At a meeting held between the MoLSA and the representatives of all regional authorities on 23 February 2012, the latter were called upon to spread the translated judgments among all local child welfare authorities.

The MoLSA also requested the Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs (Výzkumný ústav práce a sociálních věcí) to carry out a questionnaire-based survey, completed in July 2012 and focused on the application of different legal measures, in particular those mentioned by the Court in the Bergmann judgment (see above), in practice by local child welfare authorities. Two subsequent meetings between the MoLSA’s and the regional authorities’ representatives were held on 27 September and 4 October 2012 where the issues were discussed again, especially in the light of the envisaged changes in the relevant legal framework.

An amendment to Act No. 359/1999 on the Social and Legal Protection of Children, was indeed adopted and confirmed by parliament on 5 September and 7 November 2012 respectively and became Act No. 401/2012. The amendment puts particular emphasis on the application of methods of a preventive nature by the child welfare authorities which shall also have the possibility, according to the new wording of Section 13 of Act No. 359/1999, to impose on the minor, on the parents or on any other person responsible for the minor, a duty to avail themselves of a specialised counselling assistance or to be present at the first three hour sitting with an official mediator[5] or at a therapy. According to the amendment, the responsibility to decide on the measures provided for by Section 13 of the mentioned act shall be transferred to higher administrative authorities that are generally better placed to pursue administrative proceedings relating to the measures imposed. The amendment shall enter into force on 1 January 2013.

B. Measures adopted in respect of the national courts

The MoJ sent the translated judgments to the presidents of all regional courts in order for the judgments to be spread among both the regional courts’ and the district courts’ judges deciding in the proceedings on determination of contact between a parent and a minor.

The government believes that, as far as the judicial decision-making process in relation to the proceedings on the determination of contact between a parent and a minor is concerned, the best way how to secure the most appropriate application of all existing measures in order to preserve or restore family relationships is above all the proper training of the judges deciding such cases. Hence, the mentioned issue, including the Court’s case law in the field of family life, is a regular subject matter of seminars held at the Judicial Academy of the Czech Republic.[6]

Furthermore, in combination with the new amendment to the Act on the Social and Legal Protection of Children (see above), new Act No. 202/2012 (the Act on Mediation) entered into force on 1 September 2012. It provides for new means of fast and extrajudicial resolution of various complicated situations including parental conflicts. Therefore, a specialised seminar focused on the issue of mediation took place at the Judicial Academy on 18 June 2012 and another seminar focused on the issue of proceedings concerning minors with a particular emphasis having been put on imposing educational measures was held at the Judicial Academy from 29 to 31 October 2012.

The matter is, to a large extent, in the hands of judges who should play, by their proactive approach, a crucial role in the proceedings concerning situations of serious interpersonal conflicts existing within families.

III. Conclusion

In light of the above, the Czech Government believes that they have duly executed the Court’s judgments in the cases of Bergmann v. the Czech Republic and Prodělalová v. the Czech Republic.

Appendix 8

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)156

Ten cases against the Czech Republic

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.	Date of decision
CHLUMOVA AND CHLUM, Application No. 9491/06	20/09/2011
OBRATILOVI, Application No. 33307/06	15/03/2011
A.F, Application No. 17893/07	18/10/2011
RYSL, Application No. 19804/07	04/10/2011
E.H, Application No. 31251/07	29/11/2011
SIMEK AND SIMKOVA, Application No. 28454/08	15/11/2011
SVOBODOVA, Application No. 13970/09	18/10/2011
ZAHRADIL, Application No. 1536/10	20/09/2011
TYKVA, Application No. 21617/10	19/06/2012
FERENCIKOVA, Application No. 21826/10	30/08/2011

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix 9

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)157

One case against Romania and France (Dinu) and one case against France (Romańczyk)

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on
6152/02	DINU	04/11/2008	06/04/2009
7618/05	ROMANCZYK	18/11/2010	18/02/2011

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

- 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 States to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action reports provided by the governments 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 documents DH-DD(2013)545 and DH-DD(2013)733);

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.

Bilan d’action révisé (French only)

Dinu Cristina contre la Roumanie et la France

(Requête n^o 6152/02, arrêt du 4 novembre 2008, définitif le 6 avril 2009)

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

La présente affaire concerne le retard dans l’exécution d’une décision définitive des tribunaux roumains rendue en 1995 enjoignant à l’ex-mari de la requérante, ressortissant roumain résidant en France, de verser une pension alimentaire en faveur de leur fils. Pour obtenir l’exécution de cette décision, la requérante a engagé en 1995 la procédure prévue par la Convention de New York sur le recouvrement des aliments à l’étranger du 20 juin 1956. L’ordonnance d'exequatur de la décision roumaine a été délivrée en avril 2004 et l’exécution forcée a été close en septembre 2007 par les juridictions françaises compétentes, au motif que la dette au titre de l’arriéré de pension était éteinte au plus tard le 27 novembre 2006.

S’agissant de la Roumanie, la Cour européenne a constaté des retards dans la transmission des courriers aux autorités françaises compétentes pour obtenir l’exequatur de la décision en question (violation de l’article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention).

Le Gouvernement roumain a été condamné au versement de la somme de 7 500 € à la requérante, à titre de dommage moral et frais et dépens.

II. Mesures individuelles adoptées par la Roumanie

Tel qu’il ressort des informations mises à la disposition du gouvernement, la somme a été payée à la requérante, l’ordre de paiement étant transmis au Comité des Ministres par la lettre du 28 août 2009.

Vu le fait que l'ordonnance d'exequatur des décisions roumaines a été délivrée en avril 2004 et l'exécution forcée a été close en septembre 2007 par le tribunal français compétent qui a constaté que la dette au titre de l'arriéré de pension était éteinte au plus tard le 27 novembre 2006, le gouvernement estime qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est requise dans cette affaire en ce qui concerne la Roumanie.

III. Mesures générales adoptées par la Roumanie

La traduction de l’arrêt a été publiée dans le Journal officiel n° 867/2009. Le contenu de l’arrêt a été diffusé auprès du ministère de la Justice – l’autorité responsable des retards dans la transmission des courriers, mentionnés dans l’arrêt.

Au moment où la violation de la Convention est survenue, la Roumanie n’était pas membre de l`Union européenne. Elle est devenue membre de l’Union européenne en 2007, fait qui a eu des conséquences sur les instruments juridiques applicables dans des situations telles que celle de la requérante.

Pour ce motif, le bilan d’action traite premièrement les cas où la Roumanie est sollicitée par un autre Etat membre de l’Union européenne dans une procédure de reconnaissance et exécution d’un arrêt prononcé par les instances roumaines et puis, la situation où la Roumanie est sollicitée par un Etat non-membre de l’Union européenne.

1. L’autorité roumaine responsable, à savoir le ministère de la Justice, a fait valoir que, à partir de la date de 18 juin 2011, le Règlement CE n° 4/2009 du Conseil de l’Union européenne, concernant la compétence, la loi applicable, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions judiciaires et la coopération en matière des obligations d’entretien, trouve à s’appliquer.

Le Règlement supprime la procédure d’exequatur pour les décisions judiciaires prononcées après le 18 juin 2011 et pour les actions introduites après cette date. Il prévoit aussi des modalités techniques modernes de communication (fax, e-mail) et des formulaires-type, qui seront à être traduites automatiquement, à l’aide de la page d’internet de la Réseau judiciaire européenne en matière civile. Il prévoit aussi des délais impératifs pour l’information du créancier sur l’état de la récupération de la créance et c’est le premier instrument juridique en matière civile qui permet la localisation des débiteurs et l’accès aux informations sur l’existence des biens/revenus du débiteur. En ce qui concerne les décisions judiciaires prononcées avant le 18 juin 2011, elles entrent dans le champ d’application du Règlement susmentionné, la différence étant que dans ces cas il est nécessaire de parcourir la procédure d’exéquatur qui est accessible et pas très complexe.

Compte tenu de ce qui précède et de l’objectif déclaré du Règlement qui est celui d’assurer la mise en application d’une série de mesures aptes à permettre la récupération effective des créances d’entretien dans des situations transfrontalières, le gouvernement considère que les mesures générales prises vont prévenir des violations semblables.

2. En ce qui concerne la relation avec des Etats tiers, qui ne sont pas membres de l`Union européenne, la Convention sur le recouvrement international des aliments destinés aux enfants et à d'autres membres de la famille (conclue le 23 novembre 2007 à la Haye) remplace la Convention sur le recouvrement des aliments à l'étranger du 20 juin 1956 (l’instrument en vigueur à l’époque où la violation est survenue dans la présente affaire). La Convention de la Haye a été approuvée par l’Union européenne, au nom des Etats membres, par la Décision du Conseil n° 432/2011 du 9 juin 2011. Par conséquence, la Convention susmentionnée est applicable pour la Roumanie depuis le 9 juin 2011.

Les dispositions de la Convention de la Haye contiennent des garanties suffisantes pour prévenir des violations de la Convention semblables à celle produite dans la présente affaire, car elles imposent des délais courts dans les procédures de réception et traitement des demandes et des affaires, par l`intermédiaire des Autorités centrales (qui sont désignées par chaque Etat contractant pour satisfaire aux obligations qui lui sont imposées par la Convention de la Haye ; l’Autorité centrale désignée par la Roumanie est le ministère de la Justice) et aussi dans la procédure d’exéquatur. En particulier, conformément à l’article 12 de la Convention de la Haye, les Autorités centrales (requérantes et requises) ont l’obligation de traiter une affaire le plus rapidement possible en respectant aussi l’obligation d’examiner de manière adéquate son contenu.

Comme nous l’avons déjà précisé, le contenu de l’arrêt de la Cour dans la présente affaire a été disséminé auprès du ministère de la Justice, l’Autorité centrale désignée en vertu de la Convention de la Haye susmentionnée. Ainsi, l’Autorité centrale a été informée sur les exigences de l’article 6 de la Convention qui résultent dudit arrêt de la Cour.

Compte tenu de ce qui précède, le gouvernement considère que les mesures générales prises vont prévenir des violations semblables.

IV. Conclusion

Le gouvernement estime que les autorités roumaines ont pris les mesures individuelles requises aux termes de l’arrêt de la Cour, aucune autre mesure individuelle n’étant nécessaire dans cette affaire. Il invite le Comité à prendre note des mesures générales présentées, que le gouvernement estime suffisantes. A la lumière de ce qui précède, le gouvernement conclut que la Roumanie a rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1 de la Convention.

Dinu contre France et Roumanie (Requête n° 6152/02) (French only)

Arrêt du 4 novembre 2008 devenu définitif le 6 avril 2009

Romanczyk contre France (Requête n° 7618/05)

Arrêt du 18 novembre 2010 devenu définitif le 18 février 2011

Bilan d’action du Gouvernement français

Ces affaires concernent les efforts insuffisants des autorités françaises pour assister les requérantes dans l'exécution de décisions rendues par des juridictions étrangères, dans le contexte de la convention de New York de 1956 sur le recouvrement des aliments à l'étranger. La Cour a constaté une violation de l'article
6 § 1 de la Convention dans chacune des deux affaires.

Dans l'affaire Dinu, la Cour a jugé que les délais d'établissement du dossier d'exequatur par les autorités françaises et leurs demandes répétées de documents caractérisaient un manque de diligence dans l'exécution d'une décision judiciaire définitive ordonnant à l'ex-mari de la requérante de payer une pension alimentaire en faveur de leur fils.

Dans l'affaire Romanczyk, était en cause la non-exécution d'une décision définitive rendue par la Cour régionale de Katowice en 1999, ordonnant à l'ex-mari de la requérante, résidant en France, de payer une pension alimentaire en faveur de ses enfants. La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a relevé qu'après avoir, en septembre 2004, entendu le débiteur qui s'était engagé par écrit à verser la pension alimentaire, les autorités françaises n'avaient jamais donné suite à la lettre de janvier 2005 de la requérante les informant de la défaillance de ce dernier ni ne s'étaient enquis du paiement effectif de la pension. La Cour en a conclu que, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, les autorités françaises n'avaient pas déployé des efforts suffisants pour assister la requérante dans le recouvrement de ses créances alimentaires.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Dans l'affaire Dinu, la Cour a condamné la France à verser à la requérante les sommes de 10 000 euros au titre du dommage moral et de 1 500 euros au titre des frais et dépens. Cette somme, d’un montant total de 11 500 euros majoré des intérêts moratoires, a été versée à la requérante le 19 août 2009.

Dans l'affaire Romanczyk, la Cour a alloué à la requérante la somme de 4 500 euros au titre du préjudice moral. Cette somme, majorée des intérêts de retard, lui a été versée le 18 juillet 2011.

2. Les autres mesures éventuelles

Dans l'affaire Dinu, et ainsi que l'a constaté la Cour dans son arrêt, l'exécution forcée de la décision allouant la pension alimentaire a été close en septembre 2007 par le tribunal français compétent, la dette au titre de l'arriéré de pension ayant été éteinte.

S'agissant de l'affaire Romanczyk, et ainsi que la Cour le relève dans son arrêt, après la communication de la requête par la Cour aux autorités françaises, le 17 décembre 2008 (qui mettait fin à un silence sur ce dossier depuis la lettre de la Cour de Katowice en date du 18 janvier 2005), ces dernières ont relancé la procédure de recouvrement. Ainsi, elles ont ordonné une nouvelle enquête sur la situation du débiteur, sollicité et obtenu les pièces requises auprès des autorités polonaises et de la requérante et de ses enfants qui ont été mis en mesure d'initier une action en exequatur. Ces démarches, relevées par la Cour, attestent que la France a entrepris toutes les diligences requises dans le cadre de la procédure de recouvrement de la créance.

Dans ces conditions, et alors que le préjudice moral subi par les requérantes dans ces deux affaires a été indemnisé à travers le paiement de la satisfaction équitable, aucune autre mesure individuelle d’exécution n'apparaît nécessaire.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. La diffusion

Les arrêts de la Cour ont été diffusés à l’autorité expéditrice (au sens de la Convention de New York sur les recouvrements des aliments à l’étranger de 1956) au sein du ministère des Affaires étrangères. Ils sont par ailleurs disponibles par l’intermédiaire du site d’accès au droit grand public « Légifrance ».

Les arrêts ont également été publiés dans la veille bimestrielle de droit européen de la Cour de cassation (novembre – décembre 2008 s'agissant de Dinu et novembre – décembre 2010 s'agissant de Romanczyk). L'arrêt Romanczyk a notamment été commenté dans la revue critique de droit international privé n° 3, juillet‑septembre 2011, p. 675.

2. Les autres mesures générales

Aux fins de remédier aux lenteurs sanctionnées par la Cour européenne dans la délivrance de l'exequatur, un poste supplémentaire de rédacteur a été créé et un greffier a été recruté dans le service en cause. Il s'agit précisément du Bureau de recouvrement des créances alimentaires à l'étranger, lui-même rattaché à la sous-direction de la protection des droits des personnes, Service des conventions, des affaires civiles et de l'entraide judiciaire, au sein de la direction des Français à l'étranger et de l'administration consulaire du ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes. Cette réorganisation du service a permis de réduire significativement les délais de traitement des dossiers d'exequatur. Il ne faut plus désormais en moyenne qu'une année à compter de l'initiation de la phase judiciaire pour que l'exequatur d'un jugement étranger soit prononcé.

Au demeurant, le règlement (CE) n° 4/2009 du Conseil du 18 décembre 2008 relatif à la compétence, la loi applicable, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions et la coopération en matière d'obligations alimentaires prévoit, s'agissant des pays qui sont liés par le Protocole sur la loi applicable aux obligations alimentaires de 2007, dit protocole de la Haye, la suppression de l'exequatur. Ainsi, selon l'article 17 dudit règlement, une décision rendue dans un Etat membre lié par le protocole précité qui est exécutoire dans cet Etat jouit de la force exécutoire dans un autre Etat membre sans qu'une déclaration constatant la force exécutoire ne soit nécessaire. Il est également précisé que l'Union européenne ayant ratifié le protocole de La Haye, la suppression de l'exequatur est applicable dans les 27 pays membres.

Le gouvernement considère que ces mesures sont de nature à prévenir toute violation semblable de la Convention.

Par conséquent, il considère que ces arrêts ont été exécutés.

Appendix 10

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)158

Maat against France

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 39001/97, judgment of 27 April 2004, final on 27 July 2004)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Maat contre France (Requête n° 39001/97) (French only)

Arrêt du 27 avril 2004, définitif le 27 juillet 2004

Bilan d’action du Gouvernement français

Dans cette affaire, le requérant, qui faisait l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt, avait formé un appel contre le jugement rendu à son encontre par le tribunal correctionnel. La Cour d’appel avait déclaré son appel, formé par l’intermédiaire de son avocat, irrecevable au motif que l’intéressé, absent et non excusé à l’audience, se dérobait à l’exécution du mandat d’arrêt émis à son encontre.

Le requérant se plaignait de ne pas avoir pu former son appel exclusivement par l’intermédiaire de son avocat et de ne pouvoir non plus pouvoir former opposition à l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel sans être présent physiquement.

La Cour a considéré que l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention avait été méconnu car le refus de la Cour d’appel de déclarer recevable l’acte d’appel par l’intermédiaire d’un avocat au motif que le requérant se dérobait à l'exécution d'un mandat d'arrêt et l'obligation qui en résultait pour l'intéressé d'y déférer pour faire opposition audit arrêt, subordonnait le droit d’accès au tribunal à une caution constituée par la liberté physique de l’intéressé. Elle a également conclu à une violation de l’article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention au motif que l’avocat du requérant n’avait pas été autorisé à intervenir en l’absence du requérant au cours des débats devant la Cour d’appel.

I. Mesures individuelles

a) Satisfaction équitable

La satisfaction équitable d’un montant de 3 850 euros au titre des frais et dépens a été acquittée le 20 juillet 2005 et majorée des intérêts de retard.

b) Autres mesures individuelles

Dans cet arrêt la Cour a estimé que « compte tenu des circonstances particulières de l’espèce de la cause, elle est d’avis que le constat de violation suffit à réparer le préjudice moral et qu’aucune demande d’indemnisation du préjudice matériel n’est pertinente en l’espèce ». Au demeurant, le requérant n’a émis aucune demande particulière et l’avocate de l’intéressé a signalé qu’elle était sans nouvelles de son client.

En conséquence, aucune autre mesure individuelle n’apparaît requise.

II. Mesures générales

a) Sur la diffusion

Il convient de noter que les autorités françaises publient systématiquement les arrêts de la Cour européenne et les diffusent aux autorités concernées. Cet arrêt a été notamment communiqué au ministère de la Justice. Par ailleurs, il est également disponible par l’intermédiaire du site grand public d’accès au droit Légifrance.

b) Autres mesures générales

1. S'agissant de l'article 6 § 1 (accès à un tribunal), la Cour a relevé dans son arrêt l’évolution, postérieure aux faits de l’espèce, de la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation sur la question de la recevabilité d’un appel formé par un avocat en l’absence du prévenu non excusé (cf § 40 de l’arrêt de la Cour : « […] en l’état actuel de la jurisprudence, la circonstance que le prévenu ne défère pas à un mandat d’arrêt ne fait plus obstacle à la recevabilité des recours formés par l’intermédiaire d’un avocat ».

Quant à la possibilité de faire opposition sans déférer au mandat d’arrêt, l’arrêt n° 4658 du 11 septembre 2007 de la Chambre Criminelle de la Cour de cassation en a consacré le principe en déclarant « recevable l’opposition formée par le prévenu par l’intermédiaire d’un mandataire muni d’un pouvoir spécial » et en censurant l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel qui avait rejeté l’opposition ainsi formée au motif que « le prévenu a le devoir de participer loyalement à son procès en comparaissant personnellement lors de son opposition et en déclarant son domicile réel ».

2. S'agissant de l'article 6 § 3 (respect des droits de la défense), la possibilité pour l’avocat d’intervenir à l’instance en l’absence du prévenu a également été consacrée par la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation postérieurement aux faits de l’espèce ainsi que la Cour l'a relevé en se référant à l’arrêt Dentico de la Cour de cassation (§ 53 de l’arrêt). Cette évolution jurisprudentielle a été consacrée par la loi du 9 mars 2004, qui a complété l’article 410 du code de procédure pénale qui dispose désormais : « […] Si un avocat se présente pour assurer la défense du prévenu, il doit être entendu s'il en fait la demande […] ».

Le gouvernement considère que ces mesures permettront d'éviter que des violations similaires ne se reproduisent.

III. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

Le gouvernement considère que toutes les mesures nécessaires en vue d'assurer l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour ont été prises, et que la France a par conséquent rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention.

Appendix 11

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)159

Three cases against France

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on
29408/08	SOCIETE CANAL PLUS AND OTHERS	21/12/2010	21/03/2011
29613/08	COMPAGNIE DES GAZ DE PETROLE PRIMAGAZ	21/12/2010	21/03/2011
29598/08	SOCIETE METALLURGIQUE LIOTARD FRERES	05/05/2011	05/08/2011

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Société Canal Plus et autres contre France (Requête n° 29408/08) (French only)

Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Requête n° 29613/08)

Arrêts du 21 décembre 2010 devenu définitif le 21 mars 2011

Société Métallurgique Liotard Frères (Requête n° 29598/08)

Arrêt du 5 mai 2011 devenu définitif le 5 août 2011

Bilans d’action du Gouvernement français

Ces affaires concernent des visites et saisies domiciliaires effectuées dans les locaux des sociétés requérantes, suspectées d’avoir mis en œuvre des pratiques anticoncurrentielles. Invoquant l’article 6, les requérantes se plaignaient, en particulier, en se fondant sur la jurisprudence Ravon c. France de la Cour, de ne pas avoir eu accès à un recours effectif pour contester en fait et en droit les ordonnances des magistrats ayant autorisé, à la demande de l’administration, les visites litigieuses.

Dans les présentes affaires, la Cour a pris acte de ce que, postérieurement à l’introduction des requêtes, ont été mis en place des recours permettant de contester les ordonnances des juges des libertés et de la détention devant le premier président de la Cour d'appel compétent, avant de pouvoir saisir la Cour de cassation. Toutefois, dans le cas des visites domiciliaires antérieures à la nouvelle loi, ici en litige, les dispositions transitoires applicables au cas des sociétés requérantes, dont les dossiers étaient toujours à l’instruction devant l’Autorité de la concurrence, ne permettaient de contester le bien-fondé de l’ordonnance d’autorisation que dans le cadre d’un recours au fond formé devant la Cour d’appel de Paris contre la décision de l’Autorité de la concurrence statuant sur les poursuites. Cette voie de recours a été jugée par la Cour comme étant d’accès trop incertain et tardif pour remplir les exigences de l’article 6 § 1.

I. Mesures de caractère individuel

1. Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

La Cour a alloué aux requérantes une satisfaction équitable de 15 000 € (Société Canal Plus et autres),
14 500 € (Compagnie des Gaz de Pétrole Primagaz) et 12 500 € (Société Métallurgique Liotard Frères) au titre des frais et dépens. Ces sommes ont été versées aux requérantes respectivement les 21 juin 2011,
13 juillet 2011 et 12 juillet 2011. S’agissant de la Compagnie des Gaz de Pétrole Primagaz, des intérêts moratoires lui ont été versés le 6 février 2012.

2. Les autres mesures individuelles

Le gouvernement considère qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est requise en exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour au regard, d’une part des circonstances de l’espèce, et d’autre part du constat par la Cour (i) de ce qu’aucun préjudice matériel n’était constitué et de ce que (ii) le constat de violation suffisait à réparer le dommage moral subi par les requérantes. Il est également précisé que, dans les affaires Canal Plus et autres et Société Métallurgique Liotard Frères, les opérations de visites n'ont donné lieu à aucune poursuite par l'Autorité de la concurrence. L’affaire Compagnie des Gaz de pétrole Primagaz a fait l’objet de la décision 10-D-36 du 17 décembre 2010 clôturant la procédure sans aucune sanction en raison de l’absence de preuves de pratiques anticoncurrentielles.

II. Mesures de caractère général

1. Sur la diffusion

L’arrêt a été transmis aux services concernés, et notamment à la direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes. Les arrêts ont en outre été mentionnés et commentés dans la presse juridique spécialisée (voir notamment Dalloz actualité 24 janvier 2011 ; Journal du droit international (Clunet) n° 4, Octobre 2011, chron. 12).

2. Sur les autres mesures générales

Dans ses arrêts, la Cour a constaté que les autorités françaises, souhaitant tirer les conséquences de son arrêt Ravon et autres contre France dans le domaine du droit de la concurrence, ont modifié le droit interne par une ordonnance du 13 novembre 2008, afin de permettre aux personnes ayant fait l'objet de visites domiciliaires d'interjeter appel de l'ordonnance d'autorisation du juge des libertés et de la détention devant le premier président de la cour d'appel. Le régime actuel des voies de recours contre les autorisations de visite et saisie est donc pleinement conforme à la Convention.

Le constat de violation adopté par la Cour dans les présentes affaires ne concerne que certaines des dispositions transitoires de l’ordonnance du 13 novembre 2008. Ces dispositions, permettant une application rétroactive de la loi, envisageaient les différents cas de figure susceptibles de se présenter selon l'état de la procédure nationale. Etait donc notamment envisagée (article 5.IV 2e alinéa) l'hypothèse dans laquelle aucune décision n’avait encore été rendue par le Conseil de la concurrence et dans laquelle l'intéressé soit n'avait pas contesté l'ordonnance judiciaire d'autorisation de visite et de saisie, soit avait vu son recours rejeté par la Cour de cassation. Dans cette hypothèse, les dispositions transitoires de l'ordonnance prévoyaient la possibilité pour l'intéressé de contester l'ordonnance judiciaire précitée devant la Cour d'appel de Paris à l'occasion du recours contre la décision rendue sur le fond par le Conseil de la concurrence. C'est cette disposition qui a été jugée par la Cour comme ne répondant pas aux exigences de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention.

Le champ d'application de ces arrêts est donc particulièrement circonscrit. S’agissant des perquisitions anciennes pratiquées suivant le régime juridique mis en cause par la Cour, les sociétés qui auraient fait l’objet d’une condamnation par l’Autorité de la concurrence ont eu l’opportunité de contester la procédure de perquisition devant la Cour d’appel de Paris. Aucune affaire n’est en cours d’instruction devant l’Autorité de la concurrence concernant des sociétés se trouvant dans la situation décrite au 2ème alinéa de l’ordonnance du 13 novembre 2008. S’agissant des sociétés pour lesquelles les poursuites ont été abandonnées, le gouvernement est d'avis que la réouverture d’une possibilité de contestation de la perquisition litigieuse est devenue sans objet, les sociétés en cause n’étant amenées à utiliser cette possibilité que dans l’objectif de mettre un terme à la procédure sur le fond.

Dans ces conditions, le gouvernement estime qu'aucune mesure particulière, autre que la diffusion des arrêts, n'est requise.

III. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

Le gouvernement considère que toutes les mesures nécessaires en vue de l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour ont été prises, et que la France a par conséquent rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention.

Appendix 12

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)160

Mizzi against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 26111/02, judgment of 12 January 2006, final on 12 April 2006)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Action report

Mizzi v. Malta (Application No. 26111/02, judgment final on 12/04/2006)

Case summary

1. Case description:

The case concerned a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that he was denied the possibility of obtaining a judicial determination of his claim that he was not the biological father of a child born to his wife in 1967 several months after their separation. Until 1990, the applicant was prevented from bringing such a claim since the Maltese Civil Code permitted the denial of paternity only in cases of adultery and where the birth had been concealed, which did not apply. Following an amendment, the law permitted claims in paternity cases within 3 months after birth. This time-limit was raised to 6 months in 1993. The applicant was barred at the material time from using this remedy. Despite these legal limitations, the Civil Court in 1997 accepted the applicant's request based on DNA evidence establishing that he was not the child's father, holding that Maltese law violated Article 8 of the Convention. This judgment was quashed by the Constitutional Court.

The European Court held that the wording of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code coupled together with the Constitutional Court’s refusal to grant the applicant leave for introducing an action for disavowal led to the practical impossibility of denying paternity and impaired the essence of the applicant’s right to a court (violation of Article 6 § 1).

The European Court also held that a fair balance had not been struck between the general interest of the protection of the legal certainty of family relationships and the applicant's right to have the legal presumption of his paternity reviewed in light of the biological evidence (violation of Article 8).

Finally, the Court held that, as a result of the rigid application of the time limits coupled with the Constitutional Court’s refusal to allow any exceptions which meant that the applicant was deprived of the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 8, the difference in treatment between the applicant and other interested parties (whose right to challenge the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock were not subject to any time-limit) was not proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles
6 § 1 and 8).

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction (for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs and expenses) awarded has been paid and evidence previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta) was amended in 2007 (by the addition of Article 70 (4)) to permit persons in the same position as the applicant to issue an action for disavowal (for details on the legislation, see the general measures set out below). As a result, the applicant instituted such an action before the Civil Court. The Maltese authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.

General measures

4. General measures:

Article 70(4) of the Civil Code was brought into force in 2007. This provided that any applicant who brought a claim which related to a child born prior to 1993 might benefit from the reforms enacted in 1993 provided that they brought their claim before 31 December 2008. Therefore, people in the same position as the applicant (and the applicant himself) had a period of one year from 2007 (when the amendment came into force) until 31 December 2008 to bring an application repudiating paternity before the Maltese Courts.

Article 73 of the Civil Code was amended by the insertion of two new provisions allowing, upon the authorisation of the Court, the institution of an action for the repudiation of a child even after the time limits established by law. Domestic courts are now permitted, after examination of the circumstances of the case, to authorise a husband to institute an action to disown a child born in wedlock outside the relevant time limits.

The above changes in legislation will avoid any further similar violations in the future.

5. Publication and dissemination:

The judgment was published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta features as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.

The judgment received media coverage by local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of 13 January 2006 entitled “Maltese courts wrong to disallow DNA evidence”).

Judgment features in the publication in the names “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

State of execution of judgment

The Maltese authorities consider that all necessary individual and general measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 13

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)161

Two cases against Malta (Aquilina and others and John Anthony Mizzi)

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 28040/08, judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011

Application No. 17320/10, judgment of 22 November 2011, final on 22 February 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Aquilina and others v. Malta

Application No. 28040/08, judgment final on 14/09/2011

(and one clone John Anthony Mizzi v. Malta, Application No. 17320/10, judgment final on 22/02/12)

Action report submitted by Malta

Case description

Finding a violation of Article 10, the European Court considered that the Maltese courts had overstepped their margin of appreciation when examining the civil claims of defamation against the applicants and that the judgments against the applicants and the ensuing award of damages were disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

Individual measures

1. Just satisfaction:

In the case of Aquilina and others, the Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and ordered payment of four thousand euros (€4 000) for non-pecuniary damages and four thousand euros (€4 000) for costs and expenses. The Court noted that the applicants had not made a claim for the award of pecuniary damages which they had had to pay during the defamation proceedings (§ 56) which it could have awarded. This payment was effected by means of two Debit Advices of 6 December 2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Economy and Investment: one in favour of Dr Austin Bencini and another in favour of Dr Stefan Frendo both to the amount of four thousand euros (€4 000). Evidence of the same has previously been supplied.

In the case of John Anthony Mizzi, the Court awarded the applicant seven hundred euros (€700) in respect of pecuniary damage (representing the award of damages that the applicant had had to pay pursuant to the domestic courts’ decisions) and four thousand euros (€4 000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The payment was effected by virtue of three payment vouchers: (a) payment voucher dated 14 May 2012 to the amount of €3 000 issued in favour of Dr Tonio Azzopardi in respect of the costs and expenses; (b) payment voucher dated 14 May 2012 to the amount of €4 700 issued in favour of John Anthony Mizzi in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages; and (c) payment voucher dated 15 May 2012 to the amount of
€2 300 issued in favour of Dr Tonio Azzopardi in respect of part of the costs and expenses. Evidence of the same has previously been supplied.

2. Other individual measures:

This case concerned a complaint on the part of the applicants that the judgment of the domestic civil courts finding them guilty of defamation breached their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. In fact, in the Aquilina case the applicants complained that the fact that one of the applicants heard the presiding magistrate find a third party guilty of contempt of court gave her the right to publish this as a fact which reflected the reality of what happened on the day of the hearing of a bigamy case.

The government submits that the cases involved an interpretation of the provisions of the Press Act in relation to the particular facts of the case. Such an interpretation does not call for the adoption of individual measures relative to the applicants other than the payment to them of the amounts awarded by the Court.

General measures

3. General measures:

The government points out that the provisions of the Press Act, Chapter 248 of the Laws of Malta, were not per se found to be in violation of Article 10 of the Convention. The violation centred round the interpretation given by the domestic courts to the provisions of the Press Act when examining the particular facts of the case that the courts were deciding. The Court found that, in the particular circumstances and factual matrix of the cases, the Maltese courts had wrongly interpreted the provisions of the Press Act and had overstepped their margin of appreciation in the interpretation of Article 10 of the Convention. Such an interpretation by the domestic courts does not call for general measures to be adopted beyond publication and dissemination of the judgment.

Moreover, the domestic courts when deciding cases on the basis of the European Convention make extensive reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and follow the principles established therein.

In the circumstances, Malta considers that in view of the above, the Press Act provides the guarantees and protections safeguarded by the Convention and, that publication and dissemination of the judgments will provide sufficient direction to the domestic courts in future cases. Therefore, there is no need to develop further general measures in this regard.

4. Publication and dissemination:

The judgments were published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta feature as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.

The judgments were also disseminated through media coverage including an online newspaper article featured on the Times of Malta on 22 November 2011 relative to the case Mizzi v. Malta; and published in: “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

Conclusion

Malta is of the opinion that the issue of execution of the Court’s judgment as regards individual measures and general measures for the Article 10 violation has been properly addressed.

It is therefore Malta’s assessment that these cases are ready for closure.

Appendix 14

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)162

Dadouch against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 38816/07, judgment of 20 July 2010, final on 20 October 2010)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action report

Dadouch v. Malta (Application No. 38816/07, judgment final on 20/10/10)

Case summary

1. Case description:

The case concerned the delay in the registration of the applicant’s marriage from June 2004 until November 2006.

The Court held that the denial of the registration for a period of over two years was a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s Article 8 rights and thus a violation of Article 8 was found.

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The applicant’s marriage was registered in November 2006.

The authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.

General measures

4. Publication and dissemination:

The judgment has been disseminated to raise awareness within the Public Registry for the purpose of adopting better administrative co-ordination measures when dealing with similar cases in future.

The judgment has been published and disseminated to the Court of Appeal. All judgments of the European Court against Malta are automatically sent out to competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.

The judgment received media coverage in local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of 23 July 2010 entitled “Maltese citizen wins damages for delay in marriage registration”).

Judgment features in the publication in the names “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

Given that the case concerned a single incident of bad administration, the authorities consider that no other general measures are necessary.

Status of execution of judgment

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 15

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)163

Two cases against Poland

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Garycki, Application No. 14348/02, judgment of 6 February 2007, final on 6 May 2007

Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 8 February 2011, final on 8 May 2011)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the cases of

Garycki v. Poland and Finster v. Poland

Case description

Garycki, Application No. 14348/02, judgment of 06/02/2007, final on 06/05/2007

Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011

Both cases concern the violation of the presumption of innocence due to the domestic courts’ grounds for their decisions on the prolongation of the applicants’ detention (violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention) and the excessive length of detention on remand (violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

In the case of Garycki the Katowice Court of Appeal in its decision of 30 October 2001 and in the case of Finster the Gdańsk Court of Appeal in its decision of 19 March 2008 stated, before their guilt had been proved according to law, that the evidence against the applicants indicated that they had committed the offences with which they had been charged.

In its judgments, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that there was a fundamental distinction to be made between a statement that someone was merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear judicial declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that the individual had committed the crime in question. The Court underlined that there could be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

1. Details of just satisfaction

Case	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Cost and expenses	Total
Finster	-	€2 000	-	€2 000
Paid on 29/09/2011

2. Individual measures

In the case of Garycki, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in
December 2002. The Court held that finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for
the non-pecuniary damage.

In the case of Finster detention on remand was lifted on 26 June 2008. The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

1. Violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

The violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in the present cases was rather of an isolated nature and resulted from failure of specific national courts. Therefore, it seems that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment would be appropriated in order to avoid similar violations in the future.

In this context it should be noted, that the Court’s judgments were translated into Polish and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl). The issues raised in the judgments were also included in the curricula of trainings for judges and prosecutors organised by the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution.

In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.

2. Violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

General measures are examined in the context of the Trzaska group of cases (Application No. 25792/94).

III. Conclusions of the responding State

The government considers that other individual measures are not necessary in the present cases and that the general measures adopted, in particular publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention with respect to the breach of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

Appendix 16

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)164

Twenty-four cases against Poland

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.	Date of decision
GALECKA, Application No. 10253/08	18/12/2012
STASZEWSKI, Application No. 20139/08	13/09/2011
SWIATOPELK-ZAWADZKI, Application No. 31176/08	20/11/2012
GOLA, Application No. 52446/08	13/11/2012
LUZAROWSKI, Application No. 19174/09	11/12/2012
KISIL, Application No. 44002/09	11/12/2012
GERTER, Application No. 47643/09	29/01/2013
SZALATY, Application No. 55239/09	29/01/2013
KOZLOWSKA, Application No. 62556/09	27/11/2012
MARMUZIEWICZ (II), Application No. 24759/10	11/12/2012
NEDZEWICZ (II), Application No. 43610/10	18/12/2012
KULAWIAK, Application No. 45170/10	12/02/2013
CHRABALOWSKA, Application No. 49252/10	27/11/2012
WROCZYNSKI, Application No. 59443/10	15/01/2013
SAWICKI, Application No. 6609/11	18/12/2012
JABLONSKI (XVII), Application No. 42421/11	11/12/2012
LESNIAK (III), Application No. 59812/11	18/12/2012
DABROWSKI, Application No. 64016/11	22/01/2013
SWIERCZ, Application No. 72189/11	11/12/2012
WOLOSOWICZ, Application No. 73358/11	29/01/2013
CIESIELSKI, Application No. 76536/11	11/12/2012
WASSERMANN, Application No. 76931/11	18/12/2012
BUDZISZEWSKI, Application No. 16544/12	29/01/2013
SOSZYNSKI, Application No. 23854/12	15/01/2013

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix 17

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)165

Beires Côrte-Real against Portugal

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 48225/08, judgment of 11 October 2011, final on 11 January 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Bilan d’action concernant l’exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme dans l’affaire Carlos Frederico de Beires Corte-Real (Requête n° 48225/08)

(French only)

I. Identification de l’affaire :

Date de l’arrêt : 11 octobre 2011

Nº de la requête : 48225/08

Nom du requérant : Carlos Frederico de Beires Corte-Real

Brève description de la violation :

Violation de l’article 1er du Protocole n° 1 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (violation du droit de propriété en raison du temps écoulé et aux difficultés concernant le remboursement au requérant d’une créance sur l’Etat qui lui avait été reconnue).

II. Mesures de caractère individuel :

a) Paiement de l’indemnisation :

Date : 17 octobre 2012

Montant : 8.022,19 euros

b) Autres : La procédure devant la juridiction interne est terminée. Le requérant est entièrement remboursé de la créance reconnue par la juridiction interne, y compris les intérêts de retards dus, depuis le 29 décembre 2010.

Le formulaire contenant l’information concernant le paiement de la satisfaction équitable a été fourni au Secrétariat.

III. Mesures de caractère général :

a) Publication, communication et diffusion : L’arrêt a été immédiatement mis en ligne sur le site officiel de la « Procuradoria-Geral da República » – Cabinet de documentation et droit comparé. Il a été traduit en langue portugaise et transmis au Conseil supérieur des tribunaux administratifs et fiscaux, au Tribunal administratif et fiscal de Porto et à l’autorité douanière compétente afin d’en tenir compte dans des procédures futures.

b) Autres : S’agissant d’une affaire isolée, les mesures adoptées s’avèrent suffisantes.

IV. Conclusion

Compte tenu de ce qui est dit ci-dessus les autorités portugaises estiment qu’il n’y a pas lieu d’adopter d’autres mesures de caractère individuel ou général.

Appendix 18

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)166

Jones against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 36478/02, judgment of 3 February 2009, final on 3 May 2009)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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 disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession due to actions of the administrative authorities which unduly delayed the applicant’s taking possession of an immovable property nationalised under the communist regime (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 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 in the 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

- 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(2013)166

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Jones against Romania

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions mainly due to actions of the administrative authorities which delayed his taking possession of an immovable property restored to him by a decision of the Giurgiu Town Hall under the legislation concerning the immovable property nationalised during the communist regime (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In July 2001, the Town Hall upheld the restitution claim brought by the applicant and transferred to him possession of the disputed property. Shortly before, the government had issued an order under which the ownership title to the property was transferred from the Town Hall to the council of Giurgiu County, but the transfer became effective only in August 2001. The Prefect of the Giurgiu County intervened on behalf of the government by bringing a series of proceedings which resulted in the annulment of the restitution order favourable to the applicant. The applicant was therefore obliged to bring new proceedings which resulted in the restitution of the property in 2006.

The European Court found that it was for the local authorities to clarify the status of the disputed property and to ensure compliance with the law in the restitution proceedings. Yet the initial order for restitution had been annulled by the courts on grounds entirely attributable to the local authorities and moreover of questionable relevance. In these circumstances, until the property was restored following new proceedings, the applicant had borne a special and excessive burden since he had been deprived of the enjoyment of his possessions for more than five years without any compensation or measure of redress.

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	€5 000	€3 000	€8 000
Paid on 03/08/2009

b) Individual measures

The property at issue was restored to the applicant in 2006. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses and dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of profit.

In these circumstances, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The Romanian authorities consider that the violation found stems from an incidental set of circumstances, namely the errors made by the administrative authorities in the first restitution proceedings and the domestic courts’ assessment of the effects of the government’s order on the legal status of the disputed property. Having regard to these circumstances, the case would appear to be of an isolated nature.

In any event, the Romanian authorities organised the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment. Thus, a summary of the judgment in Romanian was send to the Ministry of Administration and Home Affairs for dissemination to all Prefect Offices and to other decentralised administrative authorities involved in the restitution process. The summary of the judgment was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy for dissemination to all domestic courts, so that it could be discussed within the framework of the professional training of the judges. Lastly, the judgment was presented in the Collection of the European Court’s case law between 1994-2009, together with an analysis of its effects and the indication of the authorities responsible of the violation found.

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Appendix 19

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)167

Birzescu and others and Fundatia Bucovina Mission Inc. and Fundatia Bucovina Bucuresti against Romania

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Applications Nos. 9304/05 and 1231/04, final judgments of 25 September 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court following applications for nullity (recursuri in anulare) lodged by the Procurator General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);

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;

Noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present cases (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 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

- 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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)167

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Birzescu and others and Fundatia Bucovina Mission Inc. and Fundatia Bucovina Bucuresti against Romania

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court, in 2003 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The Court did not award just satisfaction, having noted that the applicants had not submitted any claim to this end (in the Fundatia Bucovina Mission Inc. and Fundatia Bucovina Bucuresti case) or that they had submitted their claims out of the time-limit fixed for this purpose (in the Birzescu and others case).

b) Individual measures

It should be noted that Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal (revizuire) following a European Court’s judgment finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The government referred to the measures that had been taken to avoid new similar violations, as set out in Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 (in particular the fact that Articles 330 and 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure were repealed by Article 1 § 17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25 June 2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28 June 2003, which received parliamentary approval on
25 May 2004).

III. Conclusions of the respondent State

The government considers that the measures taken have fully erased the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and will prevent new similar violations in future and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Appendix 20

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)168

Maszni against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 59892/00, judgment of 21 September 2006, final on 21 December 2006)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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 lack of independence and impartiality of military courts which convicted the applicant, a civilian (violation of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

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 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(2013)168

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Maszni against Romania

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of the military courts which convicted the applicant, a civilian, in 1998 (violation of Article 6 § 1). The jurisdiction of these courts was extended to the applicant under Article 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the ordinary offences of which he was accused were closely connected to the charges against a police officer, treated as a member of the armed forces.

The European Court considered that certain aspects of the status of military judges might cast doubt on their independence and impartiality. Thus, under the provisions of Law No. 54/1993, they are regular officers in the armed forces, paid by the Ministry of Defence and subject to military discipline, and their promotion is governed by internal army regulations.

On the question of the jurisdiction of military tribunals over civilians, the Court also indicated that it could not share the reasoning according to which a global analysis of the facts was needed in order to avoid inconsistent interpretations where, as in the present case, it was possible to separate the offences.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	€1 000	€1 000	€2 000
Paid on 04/09/2007 (in conditions that have not been contested by the applicant)

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Romanian law provides, in Article 408¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the possibility of reopening criminal proceedings in cases in which the European Court finds a violation.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

At the time of the events, civilians might be tried by military courts if they were accused of committing offences together with military personnel (connection of offences). However, according to the new wording of Article 35 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law No. 356/2006, in case of indivisibility or connection if one of the courts is a civil court and the other one is a military court, the competence belongs to the civil court. It should also be noted that upon the coming into force of Law No. 360/2002 on the status of policemen, the latter have become civil servants. Consequently, policemen accused of offences are now also tried by ordinary courts.

Finally, it should be also noted that the judgment of the European Court was published in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). It was also sent to the Supreme Council of Magistracy, with a view to its dissemination to all domestic courts, with the recommendation that it be included for consideration in the activities related to continued education of judges.

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 Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

Appendix 21

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)169

Twenty-seven cases against Serbia

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.	Date of decision
VASOV, Application No. 6156/07	13/11/2012
KOSANIN, Application No. 12192/07	29/11/2011
MILOSAVLJEVIC 28, Application No. 21478/07	11/12/2012
BINJOS, Application No. 25335/07	10/01/2012
NOVAKOVIC, Application No. 32145/07	27/09/2011
VELJOVIC, Application No. 32777/07	14/09/2010
DOKIC, Application No. 33086/07	20/03/2012
HAMIDOVIC (II), Application No. 39849/07	27/09/2011
JEVTIC, Application No. 50313/07	27/09/2011
STEFANOVIC, Application No. 704/08	11/12/2012
PETKOVIC, Application No. 12909/08	13/11/2012
UGRINOVIC, Application No. 13617/08	13/11/2012
KOJIC and JOVANOVIC, Application No. 14400/08	13/11/2012
DORDEVIC and NIKOLIC, Application No. 14414/08	27/09/2011
TODOROVIC, Application No. 14536/08	13/11/2012
PERISIC, Application No. 15105/08	13/11/2012
NIKOLIC, Application No. 15122/08	13/11/2012
LAZIC, Application No. 26884/08	13/11/2012
JEREMIC, Application No. 31178/08	20/03/2012
JOVANOVIC, Application No. 37159/08	13/11/2012
RADULOVIC SOFRONIC, Application No. 39346/08	15/01/2013
BAUMGARTNER AND 3 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 39470/08	13/11/2012
ANDRIC AND 49 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 45597/08	10/01/2012
TOMIC AND 20 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 45616/08	14/02/2012
MILUNOVIC, Application No. 3716/09	21/02/2012
RADIVOJEVIC AND 13 OTHER APPLICATIONS, Application No. 32635/10	10/05/2012
JOVANOVIC, Application No. 19572/11	13/11/2012

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix 22

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)170

S.F. and Others against Sweden

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 52077/10, judgment of 15 May 2012, final on 15 August 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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 of S.F. and Others v. Sweden

Application No. 52077/10, judgment of 15 May 2012, final on 15 August 2012

Case summary

1. Case description:

The enforcement of the deportation order against the applicants, who are Iranian nationals, would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The award for costs and expenses of €1 240 has been paid and evidence thereof is supplied (see Appendices 1 and 1A).

3. Individual measures:

On 21 August 2012, the Migration Board granted the applicants permanent residence permits in Sweden.

General measures

4. General measures:

The government considers no general measures to be necessary.

5. Publication:

The judgment in English and a summary in Swedish are published in the following location:

The government’s human rights website at http://www.manskligarattigheter.se

6. Dissemination:

The government has distributed a report containing a summary of the judgment in Swedish, and with a copy of the judgment attached, to the Migration Board and the domestic courts directly involved in the case, i.e. the Migration Court in Stockholm and the Migration Court of Appeal. The report has also been distributed to other relevant courts and authorities, inter alia, all migration courts, the Swedish Bar Association, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice.

The government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment.

7. The government’s conclusion:

The government considers that all necessary measures in view of the Court’s judgment in the present case have been taken, that it has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention and that the case should consequently be closed.

Stockholm, 15 February 2013

Gunilla Isaksson

Agent of the Swedish Government

Appendix 23

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)171

Strömblad against Sweden

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 3684/07, judgment of 5 April 2012, final on 5 July 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 Ministers of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action report

Case of Strömblad v. Sweden

Application No. 3684/07, judgment final on 5 July 2012

Case summary

1. Case description

The applicant in this case had applied for divorce and initiated custody proceedings before the Swedish District Court, after his wife had moved to the Czech Republic with their daughter born in August 2003. In an interim decision, the District Court granted the applicant and his former wife joint custody and gave the applicant right of contact with his daughter. The custody proceedings were pending before the national courts for almost five years, before the District Court, in a final judgment, concluded that the applicant’s former wife be granted sole custody of the child.

The Court found unanimously on the facts that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (right to family life) in regard to the protracted custody proceedings. The Court found by 5 votes to 2 that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in regard to the remainder of the application. The Court found unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy).

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award of €7 000 and the award for costs and expenses of €3 000 have been paid and evidence supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The government considers no further individual measures are required.

General measures

4. General measures:

The Court’s judgment related to the scope of Sweden’s positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the specific facts of the case. Therefore, the government considers that no legislative or administrative measures are necessary.

5. Publication:

The judgment and a summary in Swedish are published in the following location:

The government’s human rights website at http://www.manskligarattigheter.se

6. Dissemination:

The government has distributed the judgment to, inter alia, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of Skåne and Blekinge, the District Court in Kristianstad, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Gothenburg, the Malmö Administrative Court, the Swedish National Courts Administration, the parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice.

The government considers it unnecessary to further disseminate the judgment.

7. State of execution of judgment:

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 24

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)172

Lönn against Sweden

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 49801/08, decision of 4 December 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Considering that in this case the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided to strike this case from its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlement were executed by the government of the respondent State (see document DH-DD(2013)658),

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close its examination.

Stockholm 28 May 2013

Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Sweden

Action report

Lönn v. Sweden
Application No. 49801/08, decision final on 4 December 2012

1. Case description:

The applicant, the father of a child, complained under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular, that he had suffered gender-based discrimination as a result of the provisions of the 1947 Child Allowances Act, which stipulated that a child allowance must be paid in full to the mother in the case of separated parents with joint custody, unless the mother consented to a different distribution.

In June 2012, the government reached a friendly settlement with the applicant containing the following:

“The government and the applicant have now reached the following friendly settlement on the basis of respect for human rights, as defined in the [Convention], in order to terminate the proceedings before the Court.

a) The government will pay, ex gratia, to the applicant the sum of €8 000 (eight thousand), to be converted into Swedish kroner at the rate applicable on the date of payment. [...] Execution of payment will take place when the government has received the Court's decision striking the case out of its list of cases.

b) The applicant declares that he has no further claims on the Swedish State based on the facts of the [present] application. This settlement is dependent upon the formal approval of the government at a Cabinet meeting.”

By a decision of 20 September 2012, the government approved the settlement reached and by a decision of 4 December 2012, the Court struck the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

2. Just satisfaction:

The agreed sum of €8 000 have been paid on 17 December 2012 and evidence supplied. The government considers no further individual measures are required.

3. General measures:

The government also considers no general measures to be necessary.

4. State of execution:

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 25

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)173

Seven cases against Ukraine

Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Case, Application No.	Date of decision
REDAKTSIYA GAZETY SLAVA SEVASTOPOLYA, KP, Application No. 50406/08	19/06/2012
STEPANOV, Application No. 28215/10	26/06/2012
MALITSKA, Application No. 22826/11	11/12/2012
BURDIYAN, Application No. 31331/06	18/09/2012
BURYAK, Application No. 7635/07	18/12/2012
GUKOVYCH, Application No. 17187/07	16/10/2012
GOLOVKOVA, Application No. 2930/08	28/08/2012

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

DECIDES to close their examination.

Appendix 26

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)174

Connors against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 66746/01, judgment of 27 May 2004, final on 27 August 2004)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action report

Connors v. United Kingdom (Application No. 66746/01)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 11 March 2013

Case summary

1. Case description:

Prior to 2005, Gypsies and Travellers who occupied pitches on local authority sites (‘local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites’) were provided limited statutory protection from eviction under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. In order to evict a Gypsy or Traveller from their site, a local authority needed to only give twenty eight days’ notice to terminate the licence. If the resident did not leave, the authority could seek a possession order from the court. The authority did not need to provide a justification to seek a possession order, and the court did not have an opportunity to consider whether it was reasonable to grant the order.

In 2004, in the case of Connors v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the lack of procedural safeguards to eviction from local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites breached Article 8 of the European Convention for Human Rights, which provides a right to respect for private, family and home life.

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award was paid in 2004. Evidence was previously submitted.

3. Other individual measures:

No further individual measures are required.

General measures

4. General measures:

The government has brought into force in England and Wales legislation that provides improved protection against eviction for occupiers of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites. Amendments made to the Caravan Sites Act 1968 by the Housing Act 2004 enable the courts to suspend, for up to twelve months at a time, the enforcement of a possession order made in respect of local authority Gypsy/Traveller sites.

In addition, the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which received Royal Assent on 22/07/2008, amends the Mobile Homes Act 1983 so as to confer greater security of tenure on those living on residential caravan sites. Section 318 of the 2008 Act amends the definition of “protected site” in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, extending the protections in the 1983 Act to local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites. In order to evict a Gypsy or Traveller from their site a local authority will need to satisfy the court that (i) a term of the agreement to occupy a pitch has been breached and the occupier has failed to comply with a notice to remedy the breach, and (ii) it is reasonable to terminate the agreement.

On 25 September 2008, the government published a consultation paper “Implementing the Mobile Homes Act 1983 on local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites”. The consultation paper related to proposals for amendments to the 1983 Act in respect of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites in England, and transitional provisions. The consultation was completed on 19 December 2008 and a summary of consultation responses was published on 11 October 2010:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/implementinghomesresponses

Secondary legislation bringing into force section 318 and amendments to the implied terms of the 1983 Act for local authority and county council Gypsy and Traveller sites in England came into force on 30/04/11:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111506011/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2011/9780111505991/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1002/contents/made

Section 318 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is not yet in force in Wales, but the Welsh Government is committed to implementation and the provision is expected to enter into force on
26 June 2013. The Committee of Ministers is now supervising implementation of the Court’s judgment in Buckland v. United Kingdom which addresses the situation in Wales.

5. Publication:

The judgment of the European Court was published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2005) 40 EHRR 9.

It was listed on the BAILLI website: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2004/223.html

It was also published in the Times Law Report: (2004) Times, 10 June

6. Dissemination:

The Department for Communities and Local Government issued a guidance document “Applying the Mobile Homes Act 1983 on local authority Traveller sites” to all local authorities in England in April 2011: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/mobilehomesguidance

This guidance was sent out to local authorities so that they would be aware of the changes that would apply to their Traveller sites following implementation of legislation to improve protection against eviction for occupiers of local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites in England.

7. State of execution of judgment:

The Court, in paragraph 69 of its judgment in Buckland v. United Kingdom, indicated that once the amendment to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 has entered into force, the domestic courts are able to assess the proportionality of a proposed eviction in compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 8. The government therefore considers that Connors has been implemented in England.

The outstanding point of implementation relating to Wales will be dealt with in the implementing the Buckland judgment. The government therefore considers that supervision of execution of the Connors judgment can be closed.

Appendix 27

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)175

M.S. against the United Kingdom

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 24527/08, judgment of 3 May 2012, final on 3 August 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013
at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

- 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 the above-mentioned obligation;

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.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action report

MS v. UK (Application No. 24527/08, judgment final on 03/08/2012)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 31 May 2013

Case summary

1. Case description:

On 6 December 2004, the applicant was detained arrested and transferred to a police station where it was noted that he was suffering from some form of mental illness and that a doctor would be required. His detention was authorised under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) which permits the detention of a mentally disordered person “in a place of safety” for up to 72 hours to allow them to be examined by appropriate health professionals and for appropriate arrangements to be made for their care. The applicant was detained for more than 72 hours (approximately 75 hours period) before being transferred to a psychiatric clinic (the Reaside Clinic).

While the applicant was in detention, his condition deteriorated considerably to the extent that he removed all his clothing, was drinking water from the toilet bowl, had smeared himself in food or faeces and was rocking to and fro on a bench, talking to himself, banging his chest and ranting. During the latter stages of his detention, he also refused all offers of food and drink.

The Court noted that the situation appeared to have arisen essentially out of difficulties of co-ordination between the relevant authorities when suddenly confronted with an urgent mental health case. Even though the Court accepted that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court found that the conditions which the applicant was required to endure were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. It concluded that the applicant had suffered degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award for non-pecuniary damage has been paid and evidence previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General measures

4. General measures:

On 24 April 2008, the legal department of the Reaside Clinic’s NHS Trust reported that a protocol had been agreed between the Trust and the West Midlands Police in order to avoid such a situation recurring. The West Midlands has since become the model of good practice on Section 136 (Police Powers and Places of Safety) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) on which subsequent national guidance was based.

As set out at paragraph 29 of the judgment, at the time of the applicant’s detention in 2004, once a person had been detained in one place of safety, they could not be transferred to another place of safety. An important amendment has since been made to Section 136 of the 1983 Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 to allow a person to be transferred from one place of safety (e.g. a police station) to another place of safety (e.g. a hospital). Chapter 10 of the 2008 revised version of the Code of Practice Mental Health Act 1983 (the full text of which can be found at the link below) clarifies that, if a police station is used as a place of safety, consideration should be given to the possibility of a transfer to an alternative place of safety as soon as

possible and further states that a police station should only be used as a place of safety “on an exceptional basis”. The Code of Practice also sets out the importance of ensuring jointly agreed local policies which define responsibilities for the provision and identification of places of safety and co-ordination between police forces and other services in such circumstances; as well as the necessity of training for any professionals involved.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_087073.pdf

In addition, in 2010 the National Policing Improvement Agency published “Guidance on Responding to People with Mental Ill Health or Learning Disabilities, a Briefing Note on Recognising Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities” and a “Briefing Note on Establishing Multi-Agency Protocols for Responding to Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities”. These publications, aimed at providing a “robust mechanism for the development and improvement of police responses in the field of mental health”, can be found at the links below. They set out further detail with regard to the use of the police station as a place of safety and reiterate, inter alia, that a police station should only be used on an exceptional basis; that all police forces should have access to suitable non-police places of safety rapidly; and that there be co-operation between the police and healthcare trusts to ensure that there are not only sufficient places of safety across each entire force but also sufficient resources for the same.

www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201004EDHRMIH01.pdf www.ohrn.nhs.uk/resource/policy/PoliceBNMentalHealth2010.pdf http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/npia/Briefing-Note-Multiagency-Protocols-Mental-Health-2010.pdf

The government considers no further general measures to be necessary because all the steps that needed to be taken to avoid a repetition of this experience have already been taken.

5. Publication:

The judgment has been published on:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/804.html

http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MS_v_UK_24527/08_(2012)_ECHR_804,_(2012)_MHLO_46

6. Dissemination:

The judgment was disseminated to the bodies immediately concerned and more general remedial action has already been taken as explained in the general measures section above.

7. State of execution of judgment:

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.

Appendix 28

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)1

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Belgium

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

In the exercise of the functions conferred upon it by Article 75 of the European Code of Social Security (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), as modified by the provisions of its Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the “Protocol”), and with a view to supervising the application of these two instruments by the Contracting Parties;

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 14 August 1970 have been binding on Belgium, which ratified them on 13 August 1969;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of Belgium stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of Belgium submitted its 42nd annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Whereas, in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 74, that report was examined by the ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, at its 83rd meeting in November and December 2012,

Notes:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), Article 15; Part VII (Family benefit), Article 41; Part VIII (Maternity benefit), Article 48; and Part IX (Invalidity benefit), Article 55, that in a reply to the Committee of Ministers’ previous request, the report confirms that the persons protected under these Parts of the Code include not only salaried employees, but also self-employed workers. The latter benefit from the same family benefits as salaried workers. However, with regard to sickness, maternity and invalidity benefit, self‑employed workers receive flat rate benefits, in contrast with salaried workers, who receive benefits based on their wages;

II. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 20, a tightening of the conditions relating to suitable employment. The report indicates that the Ministerial Order of 28 December 2011 amending sections 23 and 25 of the Ministerial Order of 26 November 1991 on the conditions for the application of the unemployment regulations respecting suitable employment provides that the minimum distance for job seeking shall be raised from 25 to 60 kilometres, irrespective of the time required for the journey. In this respect, the Committee of Ministers would like to draw the government’s attention to the Guide to the concept of suitable employment in the context of unemployment benefit, adopted in March 2009 by the Committee of Experts on Social Security entrusted with the supervision of the Code, of which Guideline 5 on travelling distance indicates that a particular employment may be considered unsuitable if the distance from a person’s residence is considered unreasonable. In considering unreasonableness, consideration should be given to the travelling time involved, the availability of transport, the total time away from home, etc.;

III. concerning Part VI (Employment injury benefit), Article 38, that benefit for temporary incapacity as a resultof an employment accident is provided starting from the day following the commencement of the incapacity. In the case of an occupational disease, however, the benefit is only granted to the person affected where the temporary incapacity lasts for at least 15 days. According to the report, a person who is unable to work in the event of illness and who is not provided with benefits by the Occupational Disease Fund is necessarily covered by sickness and invalidity insurance;

IV. concerning Part VII (Family benefit), Article 43, that according to the report there is no qualifying period for entitlement to family allowances. However, a worker who is sick or injured and who suffers at least 66 per cent incapacity for work, who is not receiving a benefit for incapacity for work envisaged by the legislation respecting sickness, invalidity and employment injury insurance, and a woman worker on maternity leave who is not receiving a maternity benefit, must have met the conditions for entitlement to at least six flat-rate monthly allowances over the 12 months immediately preceding the incapacity for work of at least 66 per cent or the maternity leave. Workers whose incapacity for work is at least 66 per cent before actually beginning to exercise an occupational activity do not acquire entitlement to family allowances with the supplement for the children of workers suffering from invalidity until they have met, during a period of 12 months, the conditions for entitlement to at least six flat-rate monthly allowances. Similar conditions are applicable to the provision of family allowances in the case of abandoned spouses, orphans, beneficiaries of a survivor’s pension resulting from the professional activity of the deceased spouse, workers detained by virtue of a conviction or who are in custody, workers in receipt of an early pension from the Belgian Radio-Television of the French Community or an allowance for preparatory retirement leave from the Belgian National Railway Company and workers receiving an old-age pension or a retirement pension from the State, a province, a commune or the Belgian National Railway Company;

The Committee of Ministers thanks the government for the information provided following the general request addressed to the States Parties to the Code concerning the application of Articles 69 and 71(2) of the Code;

Finds that law and practice in Belgium continue to give full effect to all the parts of the Code, as amended by the Protocol, subject to receiving information on the following points:

Decides to invite the Government of Belgium:

I. to review, when submitting its next detailed report, the amounts and conditions governing the provision to self-employed workers of sickness, maternity and invalidity benefit in light of the requirements of Parts III, VIII and IX of the Code;

II. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), in the light of the above recommendations, to ensure that the services entrusted with the application of the new rules for the definition of suitable employment in the context of unemployment insurance are aware of the criteria set out in the above Guide, which reflect the best practices in force in European States relating to travelling time and the distance from the location of employment that are considered reasonable;

III. concerning Part VI (Employment injury benefit), to explain in its next report whether sickness and invalidity insurance also covers the waiting period of 15 days for temporary incapacity as a result of an occupational disease;

IV. concerning Part VII (Family benefit), as the report has not provided a reply to the Committee of Ministers’ previous request concerning these provisions, to explain, in its next report, the social reasons justifying the existence of these limitations mentioned above and their compatibility with Article 43 of the Code.

Appendix 29

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)2

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Cyprus

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

In the exercise of the functions conferred upon it by Article 75 of the European Code of Social Security (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), and with a view to supervising the application of this instrument by the Contracting Parties;

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 16 April 1993 has been binding on Cyprus, which ratified it on 15 April 1992;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Cyprus stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

− Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Cyprus submitted its 19th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part VII (Family benefit), Article 44:

a. that the report refers to the entry into force since 1 January 2012 of the Child Benefit (Amendment) Law 189(I)/2011, which has introduced significant changes into the family benefit scheme. Previously, the child benefit has been a universal cash benefit scheme to support families with dependent children up to 23 years old, if in regular education living under the same roof. Since 1 January 2012, the child benefit is granted to families which meet the income and property assets criteria, only for the number of unmarried dependent children up to 19 years old, provided they attend a secondary school. Besides fulfilling new income and economic criteria to become entitled to child benefits, applicants must complete a minimum qualifying period of three years of residence in Cyprus;

b. that, as designed by the Code, the family benefit should be granted to prescribed classes of employees or an economically active population without any means testing (Article 41) and subject to a qualifying period of only six months of residence (Article 43). The Committee of Ministers further observes that the calculations made in the report of the total value of the child benefits granted in 2011 were done under the old scheme and are no longer relevant for assessing compliance with Article 44 of the Code under the new scheme;

II. concerning social security and reduction of poverty, that, even though the reports show that the minimum standards established by the Code continue to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system featured austerity measures reducing social expenditure and the capacity of the benefits provided by the system to stop the propagation of poverty. In the context of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, the Committee of Ministers considers it the duty of the government to assess, together with the social partners, the spread of poverty in the country, particularly among persons of modest means. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if its benefits are incapable of keeping workers above the poverty line; in such cases, the State will be seen as failing to fulfil its general responsibilities under Articles 70(3) and 71(2) of the Code;

III. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal):

a. that a general request was addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code concerning the application of Article 69, based on the following observations (paragraphs b-d), asking them to undertake an in-depth examination of the legal provisions and practical procedures that exist in the national social security system, which are intended to guarantee those concerned the full enjoyment of their rights to obtain information and advice, the right of recourse and appeal, to be represented and assisted by non-governmental organisations and trade unions, and the right to be able to denounce malpractices by social security administrative bodies to competent inspection and supervisory bodies and to request their intervention;

b. that, in recent years, many governments have mobilised their administrative and information resources with a view to establishing rigorous supervision of the acquisition of entitlement to social security financial benefits and to repress more expeditiously any offences and fraud relating to social security. The social security administrative bodies compile in their databases a mass of personal information on civil and family status, legal situation, banking, taxation and financial situation, etc., of the persons protected, provided to them by the competent bodies of the State, thereby allowing the individual monitoring of workers and their employers in real time. Payment instructions and penalties for the non-payment of contributions are increasingly under the control of social security administrative bodies themselves, without the intervention of the labour inspectorate or court procedures. The involvement of courts in the application of penalties is reserved solely for cases in which the decisions of social security administrative bodies are challenged. Any concentration in a democratic State governed by the rule of law of administrative, information processing and executive power in the hands of public administrative bodies, whether in the context of social security or in other fields, needs to be counterbalanced by the establishment of increased guarantees of respect for individual rights;

c. that the right of the persons concerned to free access to the relevant information is a precondition to the right to appeal against or contest such information when it is found to be incorrect, foreseen by Article 69 of the Code, and the right to a fair trial. All the persons concerned have to be informed of their rights and of the applicable procedures in writing and, where appropriate, through electronic means. In the event of complaints to the body administering the benefit scheme or to the courts, the procedures must be simple and expeditious. Appropriate measures also need to be taken to reinforce the supervision of social security administrative bodies by independent judicial authorities, and there should be appropriate space for monitoring by civil society organisations. The recourse procedures have to allow complainants to be represented or assisted by a delegate of a representative organisation of workers or by an organisation representing persons protected. Where the gratuity of the appeal procedures for the beneficiary is not ensured, the cost of appeal should be kept at the absolute minimum so as to allow for the effective exercise of this right, including by persons of modest means. The law should guarantee that claimants who cannot afford legal assistance are entitled to be represented by a public defender/counsel for the defence appointed by the competent authority. Each party should also have access to the relevant evidence, including

documents, expert opinions, etc. One of the most important principles of regular proceedings, namely the prompt rendition of justice, is also crucial in social security matters, since claimants often have to rely on benefits to survive. This underscores the need to establish a procedure for the rapid solution of cases where the urgency is manifest. Another principle that is applicable in social security legal procedures concerns the burden of proof, which should not lie exclusively with the complainant;

d. that the right to have a recourse duly examined is considered as falling under the general responsibility of the State to guarantee the proper administration of social security institutions and services. Any dysfunctions in social security recourse procedures therefore have to be duly addressed by the State in conformity with the principles guaranteed by international social security law. It has also been observed, in this respect, that the existence of appropriate recourse procedures should not be used abusively by forcing beneficiaries to file claims against decisions systematically denying their right to benefits;

IV. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

a. that, in European countries, the administration of social security has become conditional upon the effective use of information and communication technologies and specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations;

b. that the relations between the State and the individual, between the social security institution and the persons protected are increasingly taking place not in the traditional office space but in the electronic space, where the “rules of the game” are different. This electronic space should not, however, escape the sphere of the general responsibility of the State for the proper administration of the institutions and services concerned, which the State has to accept by virtue of Article 71(2) of the Code;

c. that it is for the State then to ensure that electronic transactions are subjected to the rule of law and that the law in turn is adapted to the needs of regulating the electronic environment. The administrative and procedural branches of the law should therefore establish, where necessary, specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure, in particular, that the procedures for the processing of data and social security benefits that are followed in electronic systems, and the related instructions adopted by administrative bodies, are so designed as to facilitate access to these benefits and to protect the privacy of personal data. The reliability, precision and safeguarding of the data used by the system are becoming key factors, as well as the appeal procedures available to challenge the electronic data used by the system, conduct an investigation in cases of information errors and, where appropriate, compensate the insured person concerned. Being in the front line of the electronic government services to their citizens, public social security institutions should be the first to adjust their rules and procedures, setting an example of what “e‑government” may look like in the near future;

d. that, in this context, there is the need for the advanced development of the social security procedural law, guaranteeing the right of the persons protected to obtain full information, electronically or otherwise, on the status of their relations with the social security institutions concerned and the concurrent obligation of these institutions to supply such information periodically and on request and free of charge;

Finds that law and practice in Cyprus continue to give full effect to all accepted parts of the Code, subject to receiving detailed information on Part VII,

Decides to invite the Government of Cyprus:

I. concerning Part VII (Family benefit), to provide in its next report, detailed statistics on the number of families and children protected under the new scheme, the updated income and economic criteria for means testing, and the calculation of the total value of child benefits paid out under the new scheme in 2012. Taking into account conceptual and legal incompatibilities of the new scheme with Part VII of the Code, the government may wish to consider applying this part on the basis of the principle of substantial equivalence and to solicit technical advice from the experts of the Council of Europe and the ILO in this respect;

II. in view of the fact that prevention and reduction of poverty is one of the main objectives of the Code, to send in its next report the most recent and comprehensive statistics on the dynamics of poverty in the country, including among the active population, pensioners and children, and on the minimum amounts of social benefits in comparison with the established poverty line;

III. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal), in the absence of the relevant information in the reports, to indicate and explain in its next report, the legal provisions and practical procedures that exist in the national social security system, which are intended to guarantee persons protected the full enjoyment of their rights to obtain information and advice, the right of recourse and appeal, to be represented and assisted by non-governmental organisations and trade unions, and the right to be able to denounce malpractices by social security administration to competent inspection and supervisory bodies and to request their intervention;

IV. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and to indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 30

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)3

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by the Czech Republic

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 9 September 2001 has been binding on the Czech Republic, which ratified it on 8 September 2000;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of the Czech Republic stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of the Czech Republic submitted its 10th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit), Article 29(2) of the Code, that the old-age pension is provided to an insured person who had completed a qualifying period of at least 25 years in 2009, which is being increased each year by one year to reach the target of 35 years after 2018. Since 2010, the minimum insurance period of 15 years required for the provision of an old-age pension for an insured individual reaching the age of 65 is being gradually extended by one year in parallel with the pension age to reach the target of a 20-year insurance period after 2013. The report states that the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs takes into account that a new legislative proposal in this matter is needed to put the Czech national law in accordance with Article 29(2) of the Code and will propose such a bill at the earliest opportunity;

II. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit) in relation to Article 68 of the Code, that, according to the report, the maternity benefit is not paid out:

(1) to the mother of a child throughout the period during which the mother has an agreement with the father of the child or the mother’s husband as to the fact that said individual will assume the care of the child and as such the insured individual, with whom the mother of the child has concluded said agreement, is entitled to receive the maternity benefit;

(2) to an insured individual throughout the period during which the said individual is unable to or not permitted to care for the child due to a serious long-term illness, due to which the said individual has entered into temporary incapacity for work and because of which the child has been taken into the care of a different physical entity or legal entity;

(3) throughout the period in which the insured individual does not take care of a newborn child and the child is therefore assigned to foster care or to institutional care;

(4) to an insured individual throughout the period in which the child was in institutional care for reasons other than medical grounds on the part of the child or the insured individual;

The report states that the period of entitlement to the maternity cash benefit of an insured woman who has borne a child must not be shorter than 14 weeks and must not expire prior to the elapse of 6 weeks from the date of birth. Accordingly, in situations mentioned in points 3 and 4 above, an insured woman will be receiving the maternity cash benefit for the minimum duration pursuant to section 35 of the Sickness Insurance Act, irrespective of whether the woman actually takes care of the child or not over that period. The Committee of Ministers further understands that in situation 2, the woman concerned will be in receipt of the sickness benefit;

III. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty, that, even though the reports show that the minimum standards established by the Code continue to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system featured austerity measures reducing social expenditure and the capacity of the benefits provided by the system to stop the propagation of poverty. In the context of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, the Committee of Ministers considers it the duty of the government to assess, together with the social partners, the spread of poverty in the country, particularly among persons of modest means. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if its benefits are incapable of keeping workers above the poverty line; in such cases, the State will be seen as failing to fulfil its general responsibilities under Articles 70(3) and 71(2) of the Code;

IV. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

a. that in European countries, the administration of social security has become conditional upon the effective use of information and communication technologies and specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations;

procedures available to challenge the electronic data used by the system, conduct an investigation in cases of information errors and, where appropriate, compensate the insured person concerned. Being in the front line of the electronic government services to their citizens, public social security institutions should be the first to adjust their rules and procedures, setting an example of what “e‑government” may look like in the near future;

The Committee of Ministers thanks the government for the information provided following the general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code concerning the application of Article 69 of the Code;

Finds that the law and practice in the Czech Republic continue to give full effect to the parts of the Code that have been accepted, except Part V, where the right to a reduced pension after 15 years of insurance should be re-established,

Decides to invite the Government of the Czech Republic:

I. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit), Article 29(2) of the Code,to indicate in its next report measures taken to re-establish the right to a reduced old-age pension to an insured individual who has reached the statutory retirement age after completing an insurance period of 15 years;

II. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit) in relation to Article 68 of the Code, with regard to the situation mentioned under Point II (1) above, to confirm in its next report that the mother will also be entitled to the maternity cash benefit for the said minimum period;

III. in view of the fact that prevention and reduction of poverty is one of the main objectives of the Code, to send in its next report the most recent and comprehensive statistics on the dynamics of poverty in the country, including among the active population, pensioners and children, and on the minimum amounts of social benefits in comparison with the established poverty line;

IV. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine the above standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 31

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)4

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Denmark

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 17 February 1974 has been binding on Denmark, which ratified it on 16 February 1973;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Denmark stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Denmark submitted its 39th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit) and Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 67, that in reply to Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)4, the report states that public old-age pension together with the supplementary benefits (especially housing allowance), a number of free services and a possible personal allowance secures all pensioners a sufficient income to maintain the family of the beneficiary in health and decency and is assessed to be in compliance with the Code;

II. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 65, that in the 38th report on the Code, the standard wage used for calculating the replacement rate of the sickness, maternity and unemployment benefits was determined by reference to the wage of the skilled manual male employee from the iron and metal industry. It is recalled, however, that in its 35th report on the Code in 2008, the government stated that the “iron and metal industry” was no longer the biggest employer of male workers in Denmark and suggested using new methods of determining the reference wage for the purposes of the Code, which were discussed in detail at the Expert meeting in Copenhagen on 25 June 2009;

III. concerning the organisation and management of the social security system, that according to the government’s 2011 report on Convention No. 102, by Royal Resolution of 7 April 2009, the responsibility for the areas of old-age pension, anticipated pension, family benefits and maternity benefit belongs to the Ministry of Integration and Social Affairs. Subsequently, in April 2012, the Danish Parliament adopted an administrative reform transferring the responsibility for these benefits from the municipalities to the new central institution named Udbetaling Danmark (Act No. 326 of 11 April 2012 on the amendment of different acts in relation to the establishment of Udbetaling Danmark and on annulment of the Act on amendment of the regulation on contributions by the State towards the expenses incurred by the municipalities according to the legislation on social pensions and other social welfare benefits). The new law does not change the material rules for the benefits but seeks to achieve their more efficient administration. Udbetaling Danmark will be responsible for a number of tasks that are mainly determined on the basis of objective criteria. With regard to old‑age benefits and anticipatory pension, Udbetaling Danmark will be responsible from 1 March 2013 for awarding, calculating and paying old-age pension, heating allowance, petrol allowance, deferred old-age pension, supplementary pension allowance (“ældre-check”) and housing allowance. With regard to family allowance and child allowance, Udbetaling Danmark will be taking over all responsibilities previously vested in the municipalities from 1 October 2012;

IV. the explanations provided by the government in reply to the following questions raised in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)4:

a. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit) in conjunction with Article 68:

i. the request to assess the compatibility with Article 68 of the Code of the Act No. 480 of 12 June 2009 on amendment of the Daily Cash Benefit (Sickness) Act, which imposed sanctions for the failure to attend the follow-up measures proposed by the municipality to the sick person with a view to reducing sickness absence and maintain the connection with the labour market. The government report refers in this respect to the adoption of the Act No. 476 of 30 May 2012 on amendment of Act on Active Employment Initiatives, the Daily Cash Benefit (Sickness) Act, Act on an Active Social Policy, the Danish Integration Act of Immigrants and the Act on the responsibility for and the control of active employment measures. This legislation was amended to include less intensive administrative demands to certain groups of persons receiving cash benefits. In particular, persons who receive sickness benefits do not have to appear in person for follow-up or participate in certain programmes within six weeks if they are expected to regain health and will be able to return to work or are expected to go on maternity leave. The follow-up conversation can instead be by phone, digitally or by mail. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Daily Cash Benefit (Sickness) Act, withdrawal of sickness benefit is authorised only on condition that the beneficiary fails to co-operate in the follow-up activities of the job centre without reasonable grounds and only after the municipality has informed the person in writing of the consequences of not co-operating. The decision as to the withdrawal of the benefit is taken only after the person concerned has been given an opportunity to explain the cause of the failure to co-operate. The Committee of Ministers takes due note of the government’s opinion that the above Danish rules are in accordance with Article 68 of the Code; and

ii. thanks the government for explaining national provisions governing the right to sickness benefit during periods of strike or lockout. According to the report, if the sickness occurred before a contractually legal conflict, the local authorities continue to pay sickness benefits to the person concerned. If the sickness occurred during a contractually legal conflict, the person concerned is not entitled to sickness benefit as the strike pay – payable at the level of unemployment benefit – normally does not lapse during a period of sickness. If the sickness occurred before or during a contractually illegal strike, sickness benefit is only payable during the strike provided the sick person would not have been part of the strike had s/he stayed healthy. The lack of payment is connected to participation in an illegal action. In the event of sickness during a non-contractual (illegal) lockout, sickness benefit is payable;

b. concerning Part VII (Family benefit), Article 43, that according to the report, since 1 January 2012, Act No. 1609 of 22 December 2010 introduced new rules on a qualifying period to ensure that recipients of the family allowance and child allowance, which form the core of the Danish cash family benefit system, must have genuine ties to Danish society in order to qualify for the full benefit. According to the new rules, the applicant must have at least two years of residence or employment in Denmark in a ten-year reference period prior to each benefit instalment (instalments are usually made quarterly). The two year qualifying period can be acquired gradually by accomplishing successive periods of six months’ duration: six months of residence or employment in Denmark entitles the applicant to 25 per cent of the full benefit; one year – to 50 per cent, 18 months – to 75 per cent, and two years – to the full benefit. Being asked to assess the compatibility of this legislation with Article 43 of the Code, which limits the qualifying period which may be prescribed by the national legislation to six months of residence, the government states that this requirement of Article 43 is met by the fact that the entitlement to part of the Danish family allowance and child allowance is acquired already after six months of residence. Moreover, the qualifying period applies only to family and child allowances, while the Danish financial support system for children covered by the Code comprises a range of other benefits, none of which have qualifying periods and are immediately available to all families residing in Denmark. This is true in particular of the very generous subsidies towards the cost of day care facilities, which exceed the total expenses on family and child allowances. These considerations and the fact that the new rules on the qualifying period apply uniformly to Danish and foreign nationals lead the government to conclude that Danish family benefits system is fully compatible with Part VII of the Code (Family benefits) in general and Article 43 in particular;

V. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

a. that in European countries the administration of social security has become conditional upon the effective use of information and communication technologies and specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations,

Finds that law and practice in Denmark continue to give full effect to the parts of the Code which have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Denmark:

I. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit) and Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 67, to include in its next report the statistical data showing that the replacement rate of the old-age pension, together with appropriate supplementary benefits, calculated under Title III of Article 67 of the Code for the standard beneficiary with 20 years of residence, will attain the minimum level specified in paragraph (c) of this Article (40 per cent of the wage of an ordinary adult male labourer estimated at DKK 325,965 in 2010);

II. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 65, to follow the recommendations of the above-mentioned meeting in calculating the replacement rate of the short-term benefits in its future reports. In particular, the government may be invited to have recourse to paragraphs 6(a) and (b) of Article 65 using the wage of a fitter or turner (or similar occupation) in the manufacture of machinery other than electrical machinery – the industry, which, according to the current employment statistics, comprise the largest number of male employees in Denmark;

III. concerning the organisation and management of the social security system, to explain, in its next report, the structure of Udbetaling Danmark and the advantages it is seeking from centralising administration, calculation and delivery of selected benefits, as well as the new procedures of complaint and appeal against its decisions;

IV. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 32

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)5

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Estonia

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

In the exercise of the functions conferred upon it by Article 75 of the European Code of Social Security (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) and with a view to supervising the application of this instrument by the Contracting Parties;

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 20 May 2005 has been binding on Estonia, which ratified it on 19 May 2004;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Estonia stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Estonia submitted its 7th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), Article 18, that pursuant to section 57(1), (2) and (5) of the Health Insurance Act, sickness benefit is paid for no more than 182 consecutive calendar days per case of sickness but for no more than 250 days per calendar year. In comparison, Article 18 of the Code permits to limit the duration of the payment of sickness benefit to 26 weeks (182 days) in each case of sickness, but does not permit imposing an overall ceiling on the number of days for which it is payable in one calendar year. In assessing this incompatibility, the report states that cases where a person is ill for more than 250 days in one calendar year are rather exceptional: a person who gets sick at the end of April or later would be entitled to continue to receive sickness benefit next year for another 250 days thus extending its maximum duration to 500 consecutive days. The Committee of Ministers would like to point out in this respect that introducing an overall limit of 500 days of sickness benefit during a period of two calendar years would be more favourable to the persons protected than the present limit of 250 days in one year. Indeed, as amended by the Protocol to the Code, Article 18 allows a limit of 546 days (78 weeks) during a period of three consecutive years;

The government’s attention is also drawn to the fact that, according to the data on the percentage of the population protected and the level of benefit given in the report, Estonia is in the position to accept the obligations of Part III (Sickness benefit) of the Code as amended by the Protocol;

II. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty that, even though the reports show that the minimum standards established by the Code continue to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system featured austerity measures reducing social expenditure and the capacity of the benefits provided by the system to stop the propagation of poverty. In the context of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, the Committee of Ministers considers it the duty of the government to assess, together with the social partners, the spread of poverty in the country, particularly among persons of modest means. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if its benefits are incapable of keeping workers above the poverty line; in such cases, the State would be seen as failing to fulfil its general responsibilities under Articles 70(3) and 71(2) of the Code;

Finds that the law and practice in Estonia give full effect to all accepted parts of the Code, subject to receiving additional information on the following points,

Decides to invite the Government of Estonia:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), to consider the above options on the basis of appropriate actuarial data, as well as an option of retaining only the limitation of the number of consecutive days per each case of sickness;

Appendix 33

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)6

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by France

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 18 February 1987 has been binding on France, which ratified it on 17 February 1986;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of France stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of France submitted its 25th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning social security governance and financing, that the report indicates that a Higher Council for Social Protection Financing was created on 29 March 2012 to organise reflection on the means of ensuring the financial sustainability of the French social model based on the principles of solidarity, while also ensuring economic competitiveness and the rebalancing of the accounts in the social sector. Composed of representatives of parliament, the social partners, the State and the bodies and institutions concerned, the Higher Council is called upon to assess the situation and make proposals for adjustments in the financing methods;

II. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

d. that, in this context, there is the need for the advanced development of the social security procedural law guaranteeing the right of the persons protected to obtain full information, electronically or otherwise, on the status of their relations with the social security institutions concerned and the concurrent obligation of these institutions to supply such information periodically and on request and free of charge;

Finds that law and practice in France continue to give full effect to the parts of the Code which have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of France:

I. concerning social security governance and financing, to provide information in its next report on the outcome of the work of the Higher Council;

II. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 34

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)7

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Germany

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 28 January 1972 have been binding on the Federal Republic of Germany, which ratified them on 27 January 1971;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany submitted its 41st annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes the information provided following the general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code concerning the application of Articles 69 and 71(2) of the Code and thanks the government,

Finds that the law and practice in Germany continue to give full effect to all parts of the Code and the Protocol which have been accepted.

Appendix 35

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)8

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Ireland

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 17 February 1972 has been binding on Ireland, which ratified it on 16 February 1971;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Ireland stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Ireland submitted its 39th annual report on the application of the Code for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), Article 17, and Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 23 (Length of the qualifying period), that in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)20 on the application of the Code by Ireland, the observation that, in comparison with other European countries, a two-year qualifying period for sickness and unemployment benefits was excessive and asked the government to consider modifying the length of the qualifying period so that it would be long enough to preclude abuse, while remaining sufficiently short for not impeding access to the sickness and unemployment benefits of a minimum duration of at least 26 and 13 weeks, respectively;

In reply, the government highlights the significant differences that exist between the Irish social welfare system and the systems in other European countries: Irish rates of social insurance contributions, which are fully reckonable for all benefits and pensions, are among the lowest in the OECD, while in return a typical employed contributor can expect to receive over his lifetime three times what he contributes to the Social Insurance Fund. Accordingly, the government feels that the qualifying conditions as they stand strike a reasonable balance between access to benefits and the contribution required from insured persons. Nevertheless, the government agrees to reconsider the qualifying conditions for the sickness and unemployment benefit schemes in the context of the ongoing review and reform of Ireland’s social welfare

system. In this connection, the Committee of Ministers would like to emphasise that though the Irish scheme may have established a proper balance between the qualifying conditions and the subsequent duration of the benefit, the present design of the sickness and unemployment benefits results in obstructing access of the persons protected to the minimum benefits guaranteed by the Code;

II. concerning Part XII (Common provisions), Article 70(3) (General responsibility of the State for the due provision of benefits):

a. with regard to reduction and discontinuation of benefits, that the report recalls that Ireland is engaged in a multi-annual programme to reduce its structural deficit and to put public finances on a sustainable footing. This is seen as a requirement for future economic stability and growth, as well as being a prerequisite for maintaining and developing the social protection system. Even allowing for the adjustments which have already taken place, there is still a €16 billion shortfall in government finances. Social welfare expenditure is a major component of overall government expenditure, accounting for some €21 billion, or 40 per cent of all current expenditure in 2012. Accordingly, it cannot be immune when it comes to overall budget adjustments. In 2012, the government is aiming for an adjustment of €3.8 billion through a combination of tax increases and reductions in day-to-day spending. The contribution to be made to this target by the social welfare budget is €0.475 billion or just over 2 per cent of overall expenditure. The government has committed to maintaining the personal rates of benefits at their current level and this was achieved in the 2012 Budget. In excess of 50 per cent of the savings envisaged for the social welfare budget this year are to come from five areas: changes to the rebate employers receive on redundancy payments, a reduction in the period covered by the winter fuel allowance from 32 to 25 weeks, changes to some child benefit rates, adjustments to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Supplement Scheme, and adjustments to the amount of earnings allowed under the One-Parent Family Payment scheme. The balance of the savings required will be achieved through small changes across a variety of other schemes. Even allowing for the reductions in rates which did take place, the improvement in the position of welfare recipients achieved during the period of unprecedented growth in social welfare payments before the crisis has to a large extent been maintained;

The Committee of Ministers notes the changes to the Social Welfare Code arising from the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland detailed in the government’s report. It observes that the changes introduced by the Social Welfare Act 2011 and the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012 continue the trend to reduction or abolition of a number of social benefits. Cuts in various benefits are effected throughout the system with a unique view to achieve the required volume of overall reduction in expenditures on social welfare;

b. with regard to the deficit of the Social Insurance Fund, that according to the report, the operating deficit of the Social Insurance Fund over the period 2008 to 2011, inclusive, was very close to €7 billion. Estimates for 2012 provide for a deficit of nearly €1.82 billion. Significant Exchequer subvention will be required to meet ongoing expenditure requirements in the absence of reductions in expenditure levels or increases in PRSI income. In this respect, the Committee of Ministers notes that the actuarial review of the Fund was due to be published in 2012;

III. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty:

a. with regard to national indicators of poverty, that according to the report, Ireland uses three national indicators of poverty: (1) at-risk-of-poverty, using a threshold of 60 per cent of median equivalised income; (2) basic deprivation, defined as enforced lack of two or more items from 11 item index of necessities, such as food, clothing, heating, as well as social activities; (3) consistent poverty, a measure of multiple poverty combining at-risk-of-poverty and basic deprivation. This last indicator is used to set Ireland’s national poverty target which is to reduce consistent poverty to 4 per cent by 2016 and to 2 per cent or less by 2020, from a 2010 baseline rate of 6.2 per cent. This equates to 200,000 people. With respect to the dynamics of poverty, the report indicates that while in the period 2003 to 2007-8 poverty fell by a significant amount, since the onset of the economic recession in 2008 it has increased using all three national indicators: at-risk-of-poverty

increased from 14 to 15.8 per cent; basic deprivation grew from 11.8 to 22.5 per cent; consistent poverty increased from 4.2 to 6.2 per cent. Compared to 2003, poverty in Ireland is still below the levels pertaining in the early 2000s on two of the three national indicators. However, the basic deprivation rate is above the 2003 baseline rate by seven percentage points;

b. with regard to the minimum welfare rate, that the report further indicates that, over the period 2003 to 2010, the minimum welfare rate as a proportion of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold increased from 71 per cent to 95 per cent. Including fuel allowance which is a means-tested household payment, the minimum welfare rate increased from 75 per cent to 100 per cent. The improvement in the minimum welfare rate as a proportion of the at-risk-of-poverty threshold was primarily due to increases in welfare rates and child benefit in the 2000s. However, in 2010, the minimum welfare rate was reduced to €196 per week and to €186 in 2011. There was no reduction in 2012. Data on the at-risk-of-poverty threshold for 2011 and 2012 is not available;

The Committee of Ministers notes with concern that during the period 2008-10, the number of persons finding themselves at-risk-of-poverty increased from 14 to 15.8 per cent. It cannot but emphasize that maintaining the minimum welfare rate above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold represents the principal guarantee against the risk of the beneficiaries sliding into the basic deprivation and consistent poverty and the welfare system failing to fulfil its main objective;

IV. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

Finds that law and practice in Ireland continue to give full effect to the parts of the Code which have been accepted, subject to the revision of the length of the qualifying period for entitlement to the sickness and unemployment benefits,

Decides to invite the Government of Ireland:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit) and Part IV (Unemployment benefit), to bear in mind the above considerations when reforming the Irish social welfare system;

II. concerning Part XII (Common provisions):

a. taking into account that the objectives to reduce public finances set under the EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland are far from being accomplished, to state when it expects to stop the trend to downsizing Ireland’s social welfare system, what new cuts in benefits are foreseen in the 2013 Budget, and whether it has fixed for itself any threshold precluding any further reduction of social expenditures;

b. to explain the main findings and recommendations of the review in its next report and to indicate measures taken to provide appropriate subvention to support the Social Insurance Fund in the short term and to return it on the sustainable financing footing in the long term;

III. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty:

a. to explain the discontinuation of social welfare benefits which has contributed to the sharp increase of basic deprivation in the country and the adoption of measures which may help to reverse this trend;

b. to be able to show in its next reports, on the basis of the available statistical data, that the minimum welfare rate together with the fuel allowance was being kept equal or above the at-risk-of-poverty threshold in each year since 2010 when it first attained this threshold;

IV. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report, the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 36

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)9

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Italy

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 21 January 1978 has been binding on Italy, which ratified it on 20 January 1977;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Italy stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Italy submitted its 27th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning the austerity policy and the performance of social security institutions and services, Article 71(2)of the Code, that the report indicates that the austerity policy imposed by the Italian Government has led the National Institute of Social Security (INPS) to take steps to change its organisation, simplify the structure of its local branches and reduce the fragmentation of spheres of responsibility in order to optimise its presence across the country and meet requirements for economically efficient management. The correct location of logistical hubs in relation to demand for services, by placing staff in a single set of premises – for now only at the regional and provincial level – has made it possible, over the last three years, to free up over 70 properties, a total of over 200,000 square metres of surface area, with savings on overheads of at least €32 million per year. In terms of production efficiency, the establishment of the Punti INPS (INPS Points) and Punti Cliente (Customer Points) seeks to achieve the best possible balance between procedures initiated by citizens using the service and the principles of cost-effectiveness which inspire administrative action. Punti INPS provides initial reception services and closed-cycle services and products and services which have an immediate impact on users’ needs. They are staffed exclusively by personnel of the Institute and run on an appointment basis via the Agenda Appuntamenti (Appointment Diary) in order to achieve the greatest cost savings and be as attuned as possible to users. Punto Cliente is a virtual point located in town halls, other public offices and recognised associations, providing predefined services which complement their institutional functions. Punto Cliente is not staffed by INPS personnel. The development of the institutional mission of INPS in the context of the economic crisis was also conditioned by a strong growth in the demand

for information and advice about social security on the part of citizens, which are addressed daily to all INPS branches through the various communication channels at the public’s disposal (contact points, telephone, email, etc.). Considering the fact that the information and advice service absorbed a significant share of human resources, mainly in the local agencies, the need for a rationalisation of the system has arisen. From November 2011, all calls made by citizens to provincial administrative departments and local agencies are channelled and handled by the Multi-channel Contact Centre (MCC) organised into specialised sections. Citizens are guided by an automated answering system towards the relevant department or through the voice portal;

The Committee of Ministers thanks the government for bringing these developments to its attention. It notes the reduction of the surface area of INPS offices at the regional and provincial level and of the resulting savings on overhead costs. The Committee of Ministers notes with concern however that the reduction of office space may entail a consequent reduction in the number of staff employed by the Institute, replaced by such virtual structures as Punti Cliente or the automated answering system of the MCC. These processes may signify downsizing of the social security institutions as part of the austerity policy of the government. Alternatively, they may signify that the austerity policy and financial imperatives were used by the INPS as an opportunity to increase productivity and efficiency of its operations through innovative organisational structures and means of communication. The ever greater demand for social benefits and interaction with the government is met by putting in place various communication channels enabling the INPS to respond with promptness and certainty in solving problems, fulfilling the increased expectations of the public for quality services. The Committee of Ministers is well aware that achieving better social security with fewer means is a major challenge to the general responsibility of governments for the proper administration of the social security institutions and services, which is now facing all European countries. In this context, proper administration would imply turning challenges into opportunities and accelerating the introduction of more cost-effective logistics and technologies in such a manner as to ensure more social security with fewer material and human resources;

II. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty, that even though the reports show that the minimum standards established by the Code continue to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system featured austerity measures reducing social expenditure and the capacity of the benefits provided by the system to stop the propagation of poverty. In the context of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, the Committee of Ministers considers it the duty of the government to assess, together with the social partners, the spread of poverty in the country, particularly among persons of modest means. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if its benefits are incapable of keeping workers above the poverty line; in such cases, the State will be seen as failing to fulfil its general responsibilities under Articles 70(3) and 71(2) of the Code;

Finds that the law and practice in Italy continue to give full effect to the four parts of the Code that have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Italy:

I. concerning the austerity policy and the performance of social security institutions and services, in order to enable a better understanding of the direction which the Italian social security system is taking under the pressure of the austerity policies:

a. to show in its next report, on the basis of the appropriate statistics, that the new lean organisational model of the INPS is not achieved at the expense of quality and accessibility of its services given to the population;

b. to explain the criteria which the INPS is using to evaluate the performance of its new organisational structure in terms of quantity and quality of services rendered;

c. taking into account that the policy of reducing INPS office space will apparently be continued at other levels besides regional and provincial, to also explain how the liberation of over 70 properties and concentration of staff in “logistical hubs in relation to demand for services” affect the process of the decentralisation of the Institute’s services through the establishment of local agencies throughout the country;

II. in view of the fact that the prevention and reduction of poverty is one of the main objectives of the Code, to send in its next report the most recent and comprehensive statistics on the dynamics of poverty in the country, including among the active population, pensioners and children, and on the minimum amounts of social benefits in comparison with the established poverty line.

Appendix 37

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)10

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Luxembourg

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 4 April 1969 have been binding on Luxembourg, which ratified them on 3 April 1968;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of Luxembourg stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of Luxembourg submitted its 44th annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit), Article 49 of the Code, that, in reply to Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)10 on the application of the Code and its Protocol by Luxembourg, concerning the provision of free prenatal, confinement and postnatal care, the report indicates that pregnant women and those who have given birth share in the cost of medical consultations and visits. According to the 43rd report, the direct share in the cost of beneficiaries for the care covered by Article 10 of the Code is 20 per cent for medical visits outside hospitals. For other medical care provided to patients not confined to hospital and for medical consultations, the cost share is 12 per cent. The Committee of Ministers recalls in this respect that Article 10(2) of the Code authorises cost-sharing by beneficiaries in the cost of medical consultations and visits in respect of a morbid condition not related to pregnancy, confinement and their consequences. However, medical consultations and visits which form part of prenatal, confinement and postnatal care shall be entirely free for insured women;

II. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

c. that it is for the State then to ensure that electronic transactions are subjected to the rule of law and that the law in turn is adapted to the needs of regulating the electronic environment. The administrative and procedural branches of law should therefore establish, where necessary, specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure, in particular, that the procedures for the processing of data and social security benefits that are followed in electronic systems, and the related instructions adopted by administrative bodies, are so designed as to facilitate access to these benefits and to protect the privacy of personal data. The reliability, precision and safeguarding of the data used by the system are becoming key factors, as well as the appeal procedures available to challenge the electronic data used by the system, conduct an investigation in cases of information errors and, where appropriate, compensate the insured person concerned. Being in the front line of the electronic government services to their citizens, public social security institutions should be the first to adjust their rules and procedures, setting an example of what “e‑government” may look like in the near future;

Finds that law and practice in Luxembourg continue to give full effect to all the provisions of the Code and the Protocol, subject to receiving information on the following points,

Decides to invite the Government of Luxembourg:

I. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit), to indicate in its next report whether such a distinction is made in the coverage of the care provided to pregnant women and in relation to confinement in Luxembourg;

II. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report, the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 38

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)11

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by the Netherlands

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since that date have been binding on the Netherlands, which ratified them on 16 March 1967;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of the Netherlands stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of the Netherlands submitted its 45th annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part II (Medical care), that in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)11 on the application of the Code and its Protocol by the Netherlands, the government was invited to provide further information;

II. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit):

a. that the 45th report states that maternity care is subjected to out of pocket payments per hour or per day, the amount of which depends on the place where the child is born. In case the child is born in hospital, a higher out of pocket payment is applicable if there is no special medical indication. The contribution consists of two parts: a starting tariff of €16 per day and the difference between the day tariff the hospital charges and the sum of €112.50, which is charged to compensate for the costs of the maternity ward in the hospital. Only when the mother must be hospitalised due to a medical indication no out of pocket payment is applicable. In case of a confinement without medical indication, such as a confinement at home or in an outpatient clinic, the mother must pay a contribution on behalf of herself and her child, which amounts to €4 per hour and is indexed yearly;

The answer of the Netherlands makes it unclear to the Committee of Ministers whether the legislation of the Netherlands continues to provide for maternity care as prescribed by Articles 10§2 and 49 of the Code without out-of-pocket payment;

b. that, according to the government’s 44th report, maternity care is provided for mother and baby for up to ten days after childbirth; there is no cost sharing for maternity care on medical indication;

III. concerning Part IX (Invalidity benefit), as amended by the Protocol, that the government’s report contains information on the application of Part IX under the revised Code, as requested in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)11 on the application of the Code and its Protocol by the Netherlands. The Committee of Ministers takes note of the fact that the Netherlands applies the Revised Code which includes a different conceptual approach with respect to disability;

IV. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Articles 65 and 66 of the Code:

a. thanks the government for explaining the methodology of determining the reference wage of the skilled and unskilled worker used for assessing the replacement rate of the Dutch benefits. According to the report, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment uses as a proxy for the wage of the skilled worker the so-called “modal wage” (modal inkomen), which is calculated by the Central Planning Bureau. The modal wage is not the same as the average wage: the modal wage is the average of the statistical intervals which contain the largest number of cases;

b. notes that the report further indicates that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment uses as a proxy for the wage of the unskilled worker the Legal Minimum Wage, which is determined by the same ministry. The determination is not so much labour market related, but is predominantly determined by political factors, because the Legal Minimum Wage is linked to the so-called “social minimum” in the Dutch social system. In most collective labour agreements, the real sectoral minimum wages are considerably higher and lie around 120–130 per cent of the Legal Minimum Wage. Because of this, the use of the Legal Minimum Wage as proxy underestimates the wages of the unskilled workers. The Committee of Ministers takes note of this explanation with concern as underestimating the wages of the unskilled workers, which are taken by the Code as a reference for assessing the replacement level of the Dutch social benefits, by as much as 30 per cent, might have led and continue to lead the supervisory bodies to false conclusions on whether the Dutch social benefits actually attain the minimum level fixed by the Code;

c. further notes that one of the reasons why the government continues to use the Legal Minimum Wage as proxy for the reference wage under the Code consists in that it is technically difficult and very time consuming and expensive to calculate an average minimum wage based on all the different wages used in more than 100 collective labour agreements. The Committee of Ministers wishes to point out that the Code does not require the government to undertake such a cumbersome exercise: its requirements are much more simple and straightforward and, in contrast with the above approach, are based on the actual labour market data and not influenced by political factors. According to Article 66 of the Code, the government has an option to determine the standard wage of the typical unskilled worker by reference to collective agreements in only one sector of economic activity expressly specified in paragraph 4 of this Article – manufacture of machinery other than electrical machinery or such other industry which employs the largest number of male employees;

Finds that the law and practice in the Netherlands give full effect to all accepted parts of the Code and the Protocol, except Part IX as amended by the Protocol,

Decides to invite the Government of the Netherlands:

I. concerning Part II (Medical care):

a. to reply in its next report to the specific questions raised in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)11 on the application of the Code and its Protocol by the Netherlands;

b. to explain the concept and the application of the “mandatory voluntary deductible” mentioned in the report with respect to benefits under the Healthcare Insurance Act;

II. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit):

a. with regard to point II(a) above, to assess in its next report whether these requirements of the Code are reflected in the Dutch law and practice, specifying in particular whether all types of medical care mentioned in Article 49(2) and (3), including prenatal care, are covered by maternity care included in the standard health insurance package and that this care is provided free of charge;

b. to indicate whether, in the case of complications resulting from the confinement, for example, maternity care on medical indication, continues to be provided after the ten-day period without any cost sharing, in accordance with Article 52 of the Code;

III. Concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments):

a. with regard to point IV(a) above, to specify in its next report, with the help of the Central Planning Bureau and the technical advice from the Council of Europe and the ILO, if necessary, to what extent “the average of the statistical intervals which contain the largest number of cases” corresponds to 125 per cent of the average earnings of all employees in the country or to the other two options for determining the reference wage of the skilled worker mentioned in paragraph 6 of Article 65 of the Code;

b. with regard to point IV(c) above, in order to further simplify the task of the government in this respect, the Committee of Ministers considers that it could be enough for the government at the present stage, to supply in its next report copies of the wage related provisions of the collective agreements in the said sectors of economic activity, together with any available statistical information on the wages paid in these sectors.

Appendix 39

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)12

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Norway

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since that date have been binding on Norway, which ratified them on 25 March 1966;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of Norway stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts:

Parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

Parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of Norway submitted its 45th annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal):

II. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

c. that it is for the State then to ensure that electronic transactions are subjected to the rule of law and that the law in turn is adapted to the needs of regulating the electronic environment. The administrative and procedural branches of law should therefore establish, where necessary, specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure, in particular, that the procedures for the processing of data and social security benefits that are followed in electronic systems, and the related instructions adopted by administrative bodies, are so designed as to facilitate access to these benefits and to protect the privacy of personal data. The reliability, precision and safeguarding of the data used by the system are becoming key factors, as well as the appeal procedures available to challenge the electronic data used by the system, conduct an investigation in cases of information errors and, where appropriate, compensate the insured person concerned. Being in the front line of the electronic government services to their citizens, public social security institutions should be the first to adjust their rules and procedures, setting an example of what “e‑government” may look like in the near future;

Finds that the law and practice in Norway continue to give full effect to all the parts of the Code and the Protocol which have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Norway:

I. concerning Article 69 (Right of complaint and appeal), in the absence of the relevant information in the reports, to indicate and explain in its next report, the legal provisions and practical procedures that exist in the national social security system, which are intended to guarantee persons protected the full enjoyment of their rights to obtain information and advice, the right of recourse and appeal, to be represented and assisted by non-governmental organisations and trade unions, and the right to be able to denounce malpractices by social security administration to competent inspection and supervisory bodies and to request their intervention;

II. concerning electronic government, to explain in its next report, the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, In order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 40

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)13

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Portugal

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 16 May 1985 have been binding on Portugal, which ratified them on 15 May 1984;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of Portugal stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts:

Parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

Parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of Portugal submitted its 27th annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 23 of the Code, the report indicates that, under the terms of Legislative Decree No. 64/2012 of 15 March, the qualifying period for entitlement to unemployment insurance has been reduced from 450 to 360 days of salaried employment over the 24 months immediately preceding unemployment;

II. concerning social security and poverty reduction, from the annual reports of Portugal on the Code covering the period 2008-2012, characterised by the economic and financial crisis, that, although the minimum standards set out in the Code continued to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system have been characterised by austerity measures and savings intended to reduce social expenditure and resulting in an increase in precocity and poverty. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if the benefits were not capable of maintaining workers above the poverty line;

III. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal):

b. that in recent years many governments have mobilised their administrative and information resources with a view to establishing rigorous supervision of the acquisition of entitlement to social security financial benefits and to repress more expeditiously any offences and fraud relating to social security. The social security administrative bodies compile in their databases a mass of personal information on civil and family status, legal situation, banking, taxation and financial situation, etc., of the persons protected, provided to them by the competent bodies of the State, thereby allowing the individual monitoring of workers and their employers in real time. Payment instructions and penalties for the non-payment of contributions are increasingly under the control of social security administrative bodies themselves, without the intervention of the labour inspectorate or court procedures. The involvement of courts in the application of penalties is reserved solely for cases in which the decisions of social security administrative bodies are challenged. Any concentration in a democratic State governed by the rule of law of administrative, information processing and executive power in the hands of public administrative bodies, whether in the context of social security or in other fields, needs to be counterbalanced by the establishment of increased guarantees of respect for individual rights;

IV. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

c. that it is for the State then to ensure that electronic transactions are subjected to the rule of law and that the law in turn is adapted to the needs of regulating the electronic environment. The administrative and procedural branches of law should therefore establish, where necessary, specific standards for the electronic forms of interaction between the parties to social security relations. It is the responsibility of the State to ensure, in particular, that the procedures for the processing of data and social security benefits that are followed in electronic systems, and the related instructions adopted by administrative bodies, are so designed as to facilitate access to these benefits and to protect the privacy of personal data. The reliability, precision and safeguarding of the data used by the system are becoming key factors, as well as the appeal procedures available to challenge the electronic data used by the system, conduct an investigation in cases of information errors and, where appropriate, compensate the insured person concerned. Being in the front line of the electronic government services to their citizens, public social security institutions should be the first to adjust their rules and procedures, setting an example of what “e‑government” may look like in the near future;

Finds that the law and practice in Portugal continue to give full effect to all the parts of the Code and the Protocol which have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Portugal:

I. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 23, to provide information in its next report concerning any further modifications in the qualifying period under the current unemployment protection scheme;

II. in view of the fact that prevention and reduction of poverty is one of the principal objectives of the Code:

a. to provide the most recent and complete statistics in its next report on poverty trends in the country, including data on the number of beneficiaries and the minimum amounts of social benefits in comparison with the poverty threshold;

b. to show, based on statistical data for the period, that the adjustment of the benefits of all protected persons has made it possible for them to maintain their real value in relation to the cost of living, in accordance with Article 65(10) of the Code;

III. concerning Article 69 (Right of complaint and appeal), in the absence of the relevant information in the reports, to indicate and explain in its next report, the legal provisions and practical procedures that exist in the national social security system, which are intended to guarantee persons protected the full enjoyment of their rights to obtain information and advice, the right of recourse and appeal, to be represented and assisted by non-governmental organisations and trade unions, and the right to be able to denounce malpractices by social security administration to competent inspection and supervisory bodies and to request their intervention;

Appendix 41

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)14

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Romania

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 10 October 2010 has been binding on Romania, which ratified it on 9 October 2009;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Romania stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Romania submitted its 1st annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part II (Medical care), (Persons protected), that, according to the government, health insurance in Romania is mandatory and operates as a universal, equitable and non‑discriminatory system. The report indicates however that 1,775,717 persons could not provide proof of health insurance coverage and did not benefit from the types of medical care guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the Code;

II. concerning the reduction of medical care, Article 10(1) of the Code, in conjunction with Article 69, that according to section 210(1)(e) of Law No. 95/2006 on Health Reform, when insured persons cannot make proof of the payment of contributions, their medical care benefits are reduced to a minimum package limited to emergency aid, care in potentially epidemic diseases and in case of pregnancy, confinement and family planning. The Committee of Ministers recalls that Article 69 of the Code does not mention the lack of proof of payment of contributions as a permitted ground for the suspension of benefits;

III. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), Article 18, that according to sections 13 and 14 of the Emergency Ordinance No. 158/2005 on leave and social health insurance benefits, sickness benefit is granted for an initial period of 90 days (approximately 13 weeks) and may be extended for a full duration of 26 weeks (183 days) subject to the approval by a social security medical expert;

IV. concerning Part VII (Family benefits), Article 44, in conjunction with Article 66 (Statistical information regarding the total value of benefits granted), that, according to the report, the total number of children of all persons protected reported under Part VII amounted to 3,892,407, while the records of the CNAS reported under Part II contain 4,220,018 children. The Committee of Ministers further notes that the report calculates the total value of family benefits on the basis of the national gross monthly minimum wage, which would be lower than the reference wage of a person deemed typical of unskilled labour determined under Article 66 of the Code;

V. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit), Article 49 (Cost-sharing), that:

a. sections 210 and 213 of Law No. 95/2006 on Health Reform provide for cost-sharing of medical care offered under the basic package of services in accordance with the framework agreements. With respect to medical care in case of pregnancy and confinement and their consequences, women are not required to participate in the cost of medical care when they are covered by health insurance and when the medical services provided are those reimbursed by the CNAS;

b. according to sections 213 and 223 of Law No. 95/2006, the monitoring and progress of pregnancy and postnatal care are provided regardless of the insurance status of women; pregnant and recently women given birth who have no income, or income below the minimum wage, are exempt from paying insurance contributions;

VI. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 65 (Replacement rate of the sickness, old age and maternity benefits), that the report on Convention No. 102 indicates, under Part III, that the monthly earnings of the person deemed typical of skilled labour in 2010 were RON 1,724, while under Part V, the monthly salary of a skilled manual labourer employed in the major group of economic activities attained only RON 1,531, which was the amount of the national monthly average wage. In contrast, the report on the Code determined the reference wage under Part V at the level of RON 1,931 as the wage of a person whose earnings were equal to 125 per cent of the average earnings of all persons protected, that is RON 1,531. However, according to the National Institute of Statistics, the national monthly average wage in 2010 was RON 1,910 and not RON 1,531;

VII. concerning the review of the rates of long-term benefits, that old-age pensions and the minimum pension value appear to be reviewed annually through a legislative process in line with the inflation rate and the real growth of earnings;

VIII. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal):

concentration, in a democratic State governed by the rule of law, of administrative, information processing and executive power in the hands of public administrative bodies, whether in the context of social security or in other fields, needs to be counterbalanced by the establishment of increased guarantees of respect for individual rights;

Finds that the accepted parts of the Code are being largely applied in law and practice in Romania, subject to receiving supplementary information on the following points,

Decides to invite the Government of Romania:

I. concerning Part II (Medical care), in view of the high number of persons who are outside the mandatory coverage, to explain in its next report the reasons leading to this situation, the categories of persons concerned, and the measures taken to extend full medical coverage to the whole of the population;

II. concerning the reduction of medical care, Article 10(1) of the Code in conjunction with Article 69, noting that health insurance contributions in Romania are paid to the National Health Insurance Fund (CNAS) by employees (5.5 per cent) and their employers (5.2 per cent), to clarify, in its next report, who is responsible for transferring these payments to the CNAS and how insured employees obtain proof of payment of the insurance contributions on their behalf by their employers;

III. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), to explain in its next report, the procedure regulating such extension of sickness benefit;

IV. concerning Part VII (Family benefits), in view of the above-mentioned incompatibilities, to review in its next report the statistical data and the calculation made under Article 44 of the Code;

V. concerning Part VIII (Maternity benefit):

a. to specify in its next report whether all types of medical services mentioned in Article 49 are covered by the framework agreements and are fully reimbursed by the CNAS; and to explain the structure and parties to such framework agreements;

b. to confirm the above statements and clarify the circumstances in which uninsured women could be required to participate in the cost of medical care related to prenatal, childbirth and postnatal care;

VI. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), in view of the above-mentioned incompatibilities, to clarify in its next report how the skilled manual male employee is selected, what is his reference wage, and what national monthly average wage should be used in the formula for the calculation of old-age pension; and to make the calculations requested by the report form on the basis of the updated statistics;

VII. concerning the review of the rates of long-term benefits, to indicate in its next report the relevant legal provisions and to furnish statistical information requested in Title VI of Article 65 for the period since 2010;

VIII. concerning Article 69 (Right of complaint and appeal), to indicate in its next report, whether the complaint and appeal procedures mentioned in the report relate to all ratified parts of the Code and to explain the rules for lodging claims before the competent public bodies at all levels.

Appendix 42

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)15

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Slovenia

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 27 February 2005 has been binding on Slovenia, which ratified it on 26 February 2004;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Slovenia stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Slovenia submitted its 7th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 24(1), in conjunction with Article 68, that in accordance with section 63 of the Labour Market Regulation Act (ZUTD) which has entered into force on
1 January 2011, the rights to unemployment cash benefit shall not be exercised by an insured person who became unemployed through his/her own fault or volition, including cases where the employment contract was terminated:

– due to the employer’s ordinary termination submitted to the worker on fault-based grounds (culpability);

– due to the employer’s ordinary termination for reasons which are explicitly determined as unsubstantiated for termination by the law regulating employment relationships with the worker not requesting arbitration or judicial protection to safeguard his/her rights;

– due to the employer’s ordinary termination contrary to the provisions of the law regulating employment relationships which determine special protection of workers from termination with the worker not requesting arbitration or judicial protection to safeguard his/her rights;

– due to the cessation of the position (office) or nomination of the holder of a public or other position in legislative, executive or judicial bodies in the Republic of Slovenia or in self‑government bodies with the worker failing to enforce his/her right to return to work pursuant to regulations enabling this;

In its Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)14, the Committee of Ministers asked the Government of Slovenia to assess the compatibility of these grounds for refusal of unemployment benefit with Article 68(e) and (f) of the Code, which authorises suspension of the benefit only when unemployment has been caused by a criminal offence or wilful misconduct of the person concerned. In reply, the government states that in contrast to point (f) of Article 68 of the Code, the denial of the right to unemployment benefit in the last three cases (referred to in indents 7, 8 and 10 of the second paragraph of section 63 of the Labour Market Regulation Act) shall not be subject to the existence of wilfulness but, in compliance with the stated legal basis, the misconduct of a worker in terms of non-exhaustion of legal remedies or the possibility of safeguarding his labour rights shall suffice for the denial of the aforementioned right;

The Committee of Ministers observes that, as explained in the report, these provisions authorise refusal of unemployment benefit on grounds not permitted by Article 68 of the Code. As what concerns the first of the abovementioned cases (referred to in indent 3 of section 63(2) of the ZUTD), the denial of the right to unemployment benefit is based, according to the report, on culpable violation of contractual obligations or other obligations arising from the employment relationship. The Committee of Ministers observes that, according to point (f) of Article 68 of the Code, culpable behaviour of the worker may give ground to the suspension of unemployment benefit only if it was wilful;

II. concerning Part VI (Employment injury benefit), Article 36, in conjunction with Article 68, that according to the report, the condition for the payment of a partial disability pension is that a person who has remaining working capacity performs appropriate work for an employer and/or is registered with the Employment Service of Slovenia. If the insured person has terminated his employment on his own volition or through his own fault, his partial disability pension is reduced by 30 per cent. In this way, the Pension and Disability Insurance Act is stimulating a partially disabled person to remain registered in the insurance system and maintain employment. The report specifies that the payment of the partial disability pension is not terminated but only reduced for a specific period of time until the insured person has re-entered the insurance scheme. In the government’s opinion, “such a method of stimulative partial invalidity pension assessment is in compliance with Article 68(f)” of the Code;

The Committee of Ministers is bound to point out that the requirement that a person who has remaining working capacity performs appropriate work or registers with the employment service under the threat of seeing his partial disability pension being reduced by 30 per cent is contrary to Part VI of the Code, which guarantees benefits at the prescribed level without regard to the residual earning capacity and the employment status of the person concerned. The manner in which the stimulus to work referred to by the government is applied with respect to the partially disabled persons, corresponds more to a “workfare” approach, which is conceptually opposed to the basic philosophy of the Code. The Committee of Ministers notes, however, that, as from 1 January 2013, the new Pension and Disability Insurance Act has entered into force whereby the partial disability pension has been replaced by partial wage compensation;

III. concerning social security and reduction of poverty, that, even though the reports show that the minimum standards established by the Code continue to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system featured austerity measures reducing social expenditure and the capacity of the benefits provided by the system to stop the propagation of poverty. In the context of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, the Committee of Ministers considers it the duty of the government to assess, together with the social partners, the spread of poverty in the country, particularly among persons of modest means. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if its benefits are incapable of keeping workers above the poverty line; in such cases the State would be seen as failing to fulfil its general responsibilities under Articles 70(3) and 71(2) of the Code;

Finds that law and practice in Slovenia continue to give full effect to Parts II, III, V, VII, VIII and X of the Code and that they also ensure the application of Parts IV and VI, subject to bringing the grounds for suspension of benefits in line with Article 68 of the Code,

Decides to invite the Government of Slovenia:

I. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), in the light of the above explanations, to review section 63 of the Labour Market Regulation Act of 2011 accordingly;

II. concerning Part VI (Employment injury benefit), in the light of the above comments, to bring its approach to compensation of employment injuries in case of partial incapacity in line with Part VI of the Code;

III. in view of the fact that prevention and reduction of poverty is one of the main objectives of the Code, to send in its next report, the most recent and comprehensive statistics on the dynamics of poverty in the country, including among the active population, pensioners and children, and on the minimum amounts of social benefits in comparison with the established poverty line.

Appendix 43

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)16

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Spain

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 9 March 1995 has been binding on Spain, which ratified it on 8 March 1994;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Spain stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Spain submitted its 17th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning the organisation and management of social security:

a. the adoption of Act No. 27/2011 of 1 August 2011 updating, adapting and modernising the social security system, which modifies the structure of the national social security system with a view to ensuring both the broadest possible coverage of protection and stable and solid financing to guarantee adequate social benefits for future generations. With regard to the management of the system, the Act authorises the government to create the State Social Security Administration Agency, which will integrate the National Social Security Institute, the General Social Security Treasury, the Marine Social Institute and the Social Security Information Technology Administration. Royal Decree No. 1823/2011 of 21 December 2011 also reforms the current ministerial structure. The Ministry of Labour and Immigration becomes the Ministry of Employment and Social Security, and establishes the following higher bodies: the Secretariat of State for Employment and the Secretariat of State for Social Security;

b. the observation, from experience, that even where responsibility for these two objectives is the competence of a single ministry, social security and employment promotion are not always co-ordinated and that, in certain European countries, anti-crisis measures for the recovery of the labour market often only include measures to make labour legislation more flexible, but do not cover the corresponding social security measures to ensure adequate protection for new flexible forms of employment;

II. concerning Part II (Medical care) of the Code, that Royal Legislative Decree No. 16/2012 of 20 April 2012, adopting urgent measures to guarantee a sustainable national health system and to improve the quality and security of benefits, introduces important changes in relation to the individual and material coverage of medical care. The measures adopted are intended to carry out a structural reform of the national health system to ensure its solvency and viability, and to remedy the unsustainable deficit in public health expenditure. In this context, the Royal Legislative Decree establishes common standards for health insurance throughout the national territory; specifies common health services throughout the State, with three different levels (basic, supplementary and accessory services), which differ from the supplementary services of the autonomous communities; and modifies the provision of medicines and sanitary products and increases the share by beneficiaries in the cost of outpatient pharmaceutical care;

III. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty, that even though the reports show that the minimum standards established by the Code continue to be applied in the country, recent developments in the national social security system featured austerity measures reducing social expenditure and the capacity of the benefits provided by the system to stop the propagation of poverty. In the context of the economic and financial crisis in Europe, the Committee of Ministers considers that it is the duty of the government to assess, together with the social partners, the spread of poverty in the country, particularly among persons of modest means. The Committee of Ministers recalls that the social security system would not fulfil its role if its benefits are incapable of keeping workers above the poverty line; in such cases the State will be seen as failing to fulfil its general responsibilities under Articles 70(3) and 71(2) of the Code;

Finds that the law and practice in Spain give full effect to all the parts of the Code which have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Spain:

I. concerning the organisation and management of social security:

a. to provide detailed information, in its next report, on the new structure of the social security system, with an indication of the new distribution of responsibilities for the administration of the various branches covered by the Code; and

b. to explain the institutional channels and practical machinery to ensure effective co-ordination between the employment and social security policies, and respectively between the two secretariats responsible for these fields within the new Ministry of Employment and Social Security;

II. concerning Part II (Medical care), while noting that the Royal Legislative Decree is intended to maintain the guarantee to citizens of public, free and universal health assistance, to ensure, by means of a comparative analysis, that the minimum benefits guaranteed by Part II of the Code remain in place;

Appendix 44

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)17

on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol

by Sweden

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code and the Protocol, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since that date have been binding on Sweden, which ratified them on 25 September 1965;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code and the Protocol, the Government of Sweden stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts:

Parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

Parts of the Code, as modified by the Protocol:

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, the Government of Sweden submitted its 45th annual report on the application of the Code, as modified by the Protocol, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part VIII of the Code, that detailed explanations were provided, with reference to questions raised in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)16 on the application of the Code and its Protocol by Sweden, on the system of the pregnancy and parental benefits in Sweden;

The Committee of Ministers thanks the government for this information and it hopes that the government’s next report will also contain replies to other questions mentioned below which were raised by the Committee of Ministers in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)16;

Finds that the law and practice in Sweden continue to give full effect to all the parts of the Code and the Protocol which have been accepted, except Part IV where the waiting period for unemployment benefit exceeds the limit fixed by the Protocol,

Decides to invite the Government of Sweden:

I. concerning Part IV (Unemployment benefit), Article 20 (Definition of suitable employment), with reference to Resolution CM/ResCSS(2011)16 and Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)16, to inform the Public Employment Service of the international obligation assumed by Sweden under Article 21(2) of the Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment Convention, 1988 (No. 168), ratified by it, to determine the suitability of employment by taking into account to an appropriate extent, alongside the labour market situation, the applicants’ acquired experience and length of service in their former occupation;

II. concerning Article 24(4) of the Code, as amended by the Protocol, to take measures to reduce the waiting period for unemployment benefit from seven to six days, in accordance with this provision of the Protocol;

III. concerning Part VII (Family benefit), Article 44, to show in its next report that the total amount of child allowance paid by the Social Insurance Agency in any reporting year attains the level required by Article 44 of the Code, as modified by the Protocol.

Appendix 45

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)18

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Switzerland

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 17 September 1978 has been binding on Switzerland, which ratified it on 16 September 1977;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Switzerland stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VII on “family benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Switzerland submitted its 34th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning electronic government, the following observations which were the basis for a general request addressed to the Contracting Parties to the Code:

designed as to facilitate access to these benefits and to protect the privacy of personal data. The reliability, precision and safeguarding of the data used by the system are becoming key factors, as well as the appeal procedures available to challenge the electronic data used by the system, conduct an investigation in cases of information errors and, where appropriate, compensate the insured person concerned. Being in the front line of the electronic government services to their citizens, public social security institutions should be the first to adjust their rules and procedures, setting an example of what “e‑government” may look like in the near future;

Finds that law and practice in Switzerland continue to give full effect to all the parts of the Code which have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Switzerland to explain in its next report, the structure of the legislation governing the sphere of electronic interaction between the individual and the social security institutions and indicate whether any consolidated or codified procedural standards were adopted in the social security field, in order to be able to examine those standards in the light of Article 71(2) of the Code.

Appendix 46

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)19

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by Turkey

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 8 March 1981 has been binding on Turkey, which ratified it on 7 March 1980;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of Turkey stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”,

– Part VI on “employment injury benefit”,

– Part VIII on “maternity benefit”,

– Part IX on “invalidity benefit”,

– Part X on “survivors’ benefit”;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of Turkey submitted its 31st annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes,

I. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal):

b. that in recent years, many governments have mobilised their administrative and information resources with a view to establishing rigorous supervision of the acquisition of entitlement to social security financial benefits and to repress more expeditiously any offences and fraud relating to social security. The social security administrative bodies compile in their databases a mass of personal information on civil and family status, legal situation, banking, taxation and financial situation, etc., of the persons protected, provided to them by the competent bodies of the State, thereby allowing the individual monitoring of workers and their employers in real time. Payment instructions and penalties for the non-payment of contributions are

increasingly under the control of social security administrative bodies themselves, without the intervention of the labour inspectorate or court procedures. The involvement of courts in the application of penalties is reserved solely for cases in which the decisions of social security administrative bodies are challenged. Any concentration in a democratic State governed by the rule of law of administrative, information processing and executive power in the hands of public administrative bodies, whether in the context of social security or in other fields, needs to be counterbalanced by the establishment of increased guarantees of respect for individual rights;

Finds that law and practice in Turkey continue to give full effect to all the parts of the Code that have been accepted,

Decides to invite the Government of Turkey:

I. concerning Article 69 (Right of complaint and appeal), in the absence of the relevant information in the reports, to indicate and explain in its next report the legal provisions and practical procedures that exist in the national social security system, which are intended to guarantee persons protected the full enjoyment of their rights to obtain information and advice, the right of recourse and appeal, to be represented and assisted by non-governmental organisations and trade unions, and the right to be able to denounce malpractices by social security administration to competent inspection and supervisory bodies and to request their intervention.

Appendix 47

(Item 6.4)

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2013)20

on the application of the European Code of Social Security

by the United Kingdom

(Period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013

at the 1177th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Whereas the Code, opened for signature on 16 April 1964, entered into force on 17 March 1968 and since 13 January 1969 has been binding on the United Kingdom, which ratified it on 12 January 1968;

Whereas, when ratifying the Code, the Government of the United Kingdom stated that it accepted, in addition to the parts which must be applied by every Contracting Party (Parts I, XI, XII, XIII and XIV), the following parts of the Code:

– Part II on “medical care”,

– Part III on “sickness benefit”,

– Part IV on “unemployment benefit”,

– Part V on “old-age benefit”;

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom subsequently accepted Part VII on “family benefit”, on 19 July 1982;

Whereas, in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the Code, the Government of the United Kingdom submitted its 44th annual report on the application of the Code, for the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012;

Notes:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), Article 17, that in reply to Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)19
on the application of the Code by the United Kingdom, with regard to the reasons for changing the qualifying condition for the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the report indicates that the Welfare Reform
Act 2009 and the Social Security (Contribution Conditions for Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) Regulations 2010 amend the National Insurance contribution conditions from
1 November 2010 so that the number of tax years in which a person needs to pay National Insurance contributions to qualify for ESA is reduced from three years to two. This aligns the period for ESA with that of Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). For each of the previous two tax years, claimants must have paid class 1 or class 2 contributions on earnings of 50 times the Lower Earnings Limit for that tax year (£97 a week in
2010-11). This differs to the previous rules where people could qualify for a lifetime of contributory ESA by paying contributions on earnings from around twelve weeks’ work at the National Minimum Wage, or just three weeks’ work at higher rate taxpayer income levels;

The Committee of Ministers understands from these explanations that changes in the contributory period for ESA were motivated on the one hand by the need to align the qualifying conditions of ESA with that of the JSA and, on the other hand, by establishing a more fair contribution requirement for obtaining a benefit which may last a lifetime. The Committee of Ministers notes however that the government’s next move consisted in transforming the contributory ESA from a “lifetime” into a short-term benefit by reducing its duration to only one year – a period even shorter than the qualifying period of two tax years in which required contributions have to be paid. Indeed, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a one-year time limit on entitlement to contributory ESA for those in the Work Related Activity Group. This change has been introduced from 30 April 2012 and has immediate effect on people who are currently claiming contributory ESA as well as those making new claims. Explaining this move, the government states that people could previously qualify for many years of benefit on the basis of National Insurance contributions paid over a relatively short period of time. This is no longer acceptable in the current fiscal climate, where the Department for Work and Pensions sees the need to review the balance between contributions paid and indefinite entitlement to support. Introducing a limit on the length of time people in the Work Related Activity Group can claim contributory ESA underlines the principle that they are expected to move into work. According to the government, ESA is thus made more consistent with the rules for contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance, which has a time limit of six months;

Reflecting on the explanations of these changes to ESA given in the government’s report by reference to the “current fiscal climate”, the Committee of Ministers observes that they have a direct impact on the application of Part III of the Code. Toughening the qualifying conditions for the entitlement to ESA on the one hand, while drastically reducing its duration on the other hand, results in an outright reduction of protection offered by the sickness benefit, which, though well explained by the government, could hardly be seen as keeping with the objective of Article 17 of the Code. All the more closer alignment of ESA with the Jobseeker’s Allowance confirms the Committee of Ministers’ previous conclusions that by subjecting ESA to mandatory work-related activity regime, the UK system was moving away from the traditional concept of sickness and invalidity benefits towards a “workfare” regime. In this respect, the Committee of Ministers has previously concluded that the minimum duration of sickness benefit of at least 26 weeks guaranteed by Article 18(1) of the Code is not observed to the extent that the work-related activity regime of the ESA imposed after the 13th week of benefit comes into conflict with the conditions of entitlement to the sickness benefit admitted by the Code. The government disagrees with this view in its 44th report and believes that claimants should engage with the conditionality regime as part of their claim for sickness benefits in order to receive help and support to return to work where possible. The conditionality regime depends on the claimant’s prognosis: claimants with a three- or six‑month prognosis are usually referred to the Work Programme and those with a twelve-month or more prognosis are usually subject to mandatory work-focused interviews (WFI) and work‑related activity (WRA). The government believes that these arrangements are not incompatible with its obligations and requirement to provide sickness benefit under the Code. The Committee of Ministers recalls that, to substantiate its point of view, the government has been invited in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)19 on the application of the Code by the United Kingdom to explain in detail in its 44th annual report, with reference to corresponding legal and administrative provisions, the sanctions applied for refusal to engage in the work-related activity regime, including the WFI, WRA and the Work Programme, and the discretionary powers conferred in this respect on the advisers by the 2011 Work Related Activity Regulations;

II. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit), Article 28, that the report indicates that, on 12 July 2012, the Minister of State for Pensions announced details about the single-tier reform of State pensions and a review of State pension age. These reforms would lead to a simpler and fairer system, reducing the need for means testing and rewarding saving. The single-tier pension would be set at a level above the standard minimum guarantee in the (means-tested) pension credit. This will help to ensure that those of working age will be able to save for their retirement with confidence. The reforms would be introduced early in the next parliament;

III. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 66, that the Committee of Ministers understands from the reply of the government to Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)19, that the government intends henceforth to determine the reference wage of an ordinary adult male labourer under Article 66 of the Code as the median full-time gross weekly rate for elementary occupations established by the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). This figure for 2010 (not excluding overtime) would be £330 (rounded);

The Committee of Ministers wishes to recall in this respect that, in accordance with Article 66(7) of the Code, the wage of the ordinary adult male labourer shall be determined on the basis of the rates of wages for normal hours of work fixed by collective agreements, by, or in pursuance of, national laws or regulations, where applicable, or by custom, including cost-of-living allowances, if any;

IV. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty, in Resolution CM/ResCSS(2012)19 the Committee of Ministers asked the government to supply the most recent and comprehensive statistics on the dynamics of poverty in the country. In reply, the government indicates in its report that the latest national statistics on Households Below Average Income (HBAI), produced by the Department for Work and Pensions, were released on 14 June 2012 and give an insight into the standard of living of the household population in the United Kingdom, focusing on the lower part of income distribution, for the period up to the end of 2010-11. Compared to 1998-99, the number of children and pensioners who were in households with incomes below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC) has notably decreased, while the number of working-age adults increased in the last ten years by 0.5 million on a BHC basis and 1.1 million AHC;

V. concerning Article 69 of the Code (Right of complaint and appeal):

represented or assisted by a delegate of a representative organisation of workers or by an organisation representing persons protected. Where the gratuity of the appeal procedures for the beneficiary is not ensured, the cost of appeal should be kept at the absolute minimum so as to allow for the effective exercise of this right, including by persons of modest means. The law should guarantee that claimants who cannot afford legal assistance are entitled to be represented by a public defender/counsel for the defence appointed by the competent authority. Each party should also have access to the relevant evidence, including documents, expert opinions, etc. One of the most important principles of regular proceedings, namely the prompt rendition of justice, is also crucial in social security matters, since claimants often have to rely on benefits to survive. This underscores the need to establish a procedure for the rapid solution of cases where the urgency is manifest. Another principle that is applicable in social security legal procedures concerns the burden of proof, which should not lie exclusively with the complainant;

Finds that law and practice in the United Kingdom continue to give full effect to the provisions of Parts II, IV, V and VII of the Code and that they also ensure the application of Part III, subject to receiving information on the conditionality requirements and sanctions imposed by the work-related activity regime of the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA),

Decides to invite the Government of the United Kingdom:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit), to show in its next report that the obligations and sanctions under the work-related activity regime are of such a nature as not to unduly limit the protection afforded by Part III of the Code to sick persons after the 13th week of sickness. In doing so, the government should take into account the cases of the suspension of benefits admitted by Article 68 of the Code;

II. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit), to specify in its next report, whether the new single-tier pension, when introduced, would be sufficient by itself to ensure the 40 per cent replacement level required by the Code or would need to be complemented for this by the product of the individual savings;

III. concerning social security and reduction of poverty, to provide information in its next report on measures it is taking to reverse this long-term trend of the spread of poverty among the working-age population in the United Kingdom and to explain in particular the fact that, compared to 2009-10, the number of working-age adults in such low-income households has indeed fallen by one percentage point;

IV. concerning Article 69 (Right of complaint and appeal), in the absence of the relevant information, to indicate and explain in its next report, the legal provisions and practical procedures that exist in the national social security system, which are intended to guarantee persons protected the full enjoyment of their rights to obtain information and advice, the right of recourse and appeal, the right to be represented and assisted before relevant courts and tribunals, including access to funding for this purpose, and the right to be able to challenge malpractices by social security administration before competent inspection and supervisory bodies and to request their intervention.

+ There were no decisions under this item.

[1] Case against France and Romania.

[2] http://www.asp.government.bg/ASP_Client/ClientServlet?cmd=add_content&lng=1&sectid=13&selid=13.

[3] Article 420 (2) Any individual sentenced for a publicly actionable criminal offence who has not been exempted from criminal liability with the imposition of an administrative punishment on grounds of Art. 78a Criminal Code may alone extend a request for reopening the criminal case in the hypotheses of Art. 422, paragraph 1, item 5.

Article 421 (3) The sentenced person may file a new request under Art. 422, paragraph 1, item 5, within six months of the entry into force of the respective act.

Article 422 (1) A criminal case shall be reopened where (…):

4. By virtue of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, a violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been established that has a considerable importance for the case;

5. Substantial violations have been committed under Article 348, paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs 1-3 under sentences, decisions, court rulings and orders which have not been examined in the course of cassation proceedings.

Art. 424 (1) The request for reopening of the case shall be examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation.

Art. 426 The rules for cassation proceedings shall apply, insofar as this Chapter does not contain any special rules.

[4] Payment of just satisfaction will be dealt with separately.

[5] According to sections 2 and 11 of Act No. 202/2012 on Mediation, an official mediator is a mediator registered in the official list of mediators.

[6] A seminar focused on the family law which is destined for, among others, the child care judges was held at the Judicial Academy in January 2012. Next seminar of the same kind is scheduled take place in January 2013 and should include the issues related to the Court’s judgments at hand.