Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 201 4 ) 46

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Otava against Czech Republic

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

36561/05

OTAVA

27/05/2010

10/11/2011

27/08/2010

10/11/2011

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 April 2014 at the 1197th 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 s transmitted by t he Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation 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 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 regarding the payment of the sum agreed upon in the friendly settlement ;

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, parag raph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 201 4 ) 46

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment s in the case of Otava against the Czech Republic

Case description

The applicant was deprived of his property pursuant to the law on restitution , on the grounds that he had acquired it from the authorities of Czechoslovakia under the Communist regime. The impugned national decision became final in 2005. The European Court found that the compensation received by the applicant in 2004 fo r the deprivation of his property did not reflect the real value of the property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

5 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

(paid within the time-limit set)

b) Individual measures

Following its finding of a violation on the merits of the case, the Court reserved the application of Article 41 of the Convention concerning the pecuniary damage . In the meantime , the parties reached a friendly settlement in which t he authorities undertook to pay the applicant 2 500 000 CZK in respect of the damage suffered and costs and expenses . As a result, the Court struck th is aspect of the judgment out of its list of cases.

The agreed sum was paid on 23 November 2011.

II. General measures

In respect of general measures, this case is similar to that of Pincová and Pinc against the Czech Republic ( A pplication No. 36548/97) and Zvolský and Zvolská against the Czech Republic ( A pplication No. 46129/99), closed by final resolution CM/ Res DH (2007)30 . Those cases concerned a deprivation of property without sufficient compensation ( violation s of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). T he Committee noted that the violations found in these cases were isolated and did not call for legislative change. Moreover, the deadline for lodging restitution requests under the relevant law in the present case had already expir ed (it had been set to end on 1 May 1995).

III. Conclusions of the respondent S tate

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