European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dorozhko and Pozharskiy against Estonia - 14659/04 [2010] ECHR 2244 (2 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2244.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2244

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)159¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Dorozhko and Pozharskiy against Estonia

(Applications Nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008)

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 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 violation of the right to an impartial tribunal due to the fact that the trial judge was married to the head of the team of investigators set up to carry out the investigation in this case (violation of Article 6, paragraph 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 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(2010)159

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

Dorozhko and Pozharskiy against Estonia

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to an impartial tribunal in that the judge who tried criminal proceedings against them in 2003, was married to the head of the investigation team specially set up to investigate the same case (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

The Court noted that there were ascertainable facts which could raise justified doubts as to the objective impartiality of the trial judge.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	1 500 EUR	-	1 500 EUR
Paid on 10/09/2008

b) Individual measures

The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the second applicant. The first applicant made no claim in this respect.

Relying on paragraph 7 of Article 366 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings on the reopening of proceedings in case of violation of the European Convention, the applicants’ representative applied for reopening before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the application on the merits and considered that the finding of violation by the European Court in this case did not call into question the outcome of the domestic proceedings, i.e. the applicants’ conviction. The Estonian authorities consider accordingly that the examination of the need to reopen the proceedings in the light of the applicants’ submissions constitutes a sufficient individual measure for the execution of this case.

II. General measures

The Estonian authorities deemed that the violation found by the Court in this case is an isolated occurrence and consider that the measures of translation, publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment will prevent similar violations of the Convention.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Estonia have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.