Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 2013)177 Takush against Greece

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 2853/09, judgment of 17/01/2012, final on 17/04/2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 September 2013

at the 1178th 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)480 );

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 r eport

Fatmir Takush v. Greece ( A pplication No. 2853/09)

Introduction

The Court found that the applicant ’ s deportation was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 on the following grounds: 1) The applicant, who was lawfully resident on Greek territory at the time of the deportation, was deported urgently for reasons of public order, which is a case authorised by paragraph 2 of Article 1. Nevertheless the competent authorities failed to prove that the applicant was dangerous for public order and security. 2) Because of the above urgent deportation the applicant was deprived of his right to have his case examined before deportation as he was entitled according to Article 1 paragraph 1 of Protocol No. 7.

Individual m easures

Just satisfaction

The just satisfaction award has been paid. No further individual measures are required, due to the fact that the deportation decision has been quashed by virtue of No. 2995/2011 judgment of the Administrative Court of Thessaloniki. By virtue of the same judgment the applicant ’ s name was removed from the list of undesirable foreigners (EKANA).

General m easures

Publication

The judgment of the Court has been translated into Greek and the translation has been published on the website of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gov.gr).

Dissemination

By separate letter , the Government Agent ’ s Office transmitted the judgment to the Ministry concerned and to the police, explaining the findings of the judgment and advising on the measures that should be adopted for its implementation.

Following the above advice , the Police Headquarters took action by way of a Circular dated 15 November 2012 and addressed to all authorities involved in the deportation procedure (attachment I). In said Circular , the findings of the judgment are elaborated and the agents of the competent authorities are requested to comply with them.

State of execution of the judgment

In the judgment, it is noted (§61) that although the Greek legal system provides foreigners with a number of remedies against a deportation order, the way that the deportation of the applicant was executed deprived him of his rights to challenge effectively the deportation order. Therefore, the breach found by the Court concerns the implementation of the relevant legislation in the adjudicated case.

The g overnment considers that the case is confined to its own specific facts and no further general measures are required.

Dimitrios Kalogiros

Adviser at the State Legal Council