the case of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy; ResDH(2006)1 in the cases of Ryabykh and Volkova).
126. In order to facilitate effective implementation of its judgments along these lines, the Court may adopt a pilot-judgment procedure allowing it to clearly identify in a judgment the existence of structural problems underlying the violations and to indicate specific measures or actions to be taken by the respondent state to remedy them (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], 31443/96, §§ 189 - 194 and the operative part, ECHR 2004-V, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC] No. 35014/97, ECHR 2006-... , §§ 231 - 239 and the operative part). This adjudicative approach is however pursued with due respect for the Convention organs' respective functions: it falls to the Committee of Ministers to evaluate the implementation of individual and general measures under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], No. 31443/96, § 42, ECHR 2005-IX, and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], No. 35014/97, § 42, 28 April 2008).
127. Another important aim of the pilot-judgment procedure is to induce the respondent State to resolve large numbers of individual cases arising from the same structural problem at the domestic level, thus implementing the principle of subsidiarity which underpins the Convention system. Indeed, the Court's task, as defined by Article 19, that is to "ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto", is not necessarily best achieved by repeating the same findings in large series of cases (see, mutatis mutandis, E.G. v. Poland (dec.), No. 50425/99, § 27, 23 September 2008, § 27). The object of the pilot-judgment procedure is to facilitate the speediest and most effective resolution of a dysfunction affecting the protection of the Convention rights in question in the national legal order (see Wolkenberg and Others v. Poland (dec.), No. 50003/99, § 34, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)). While the respondent State's action should primarily aim at the resolution of such a dysfunction and at the introduction, where appropriate, of effective domestic remedies in respect of the violations in question, it may also include ad hoc solutions such as friendly settlements with the applicants or unilateral remedial offers in line with the Convention requirements. The Court may decide to adjourn examination of all similar cases, thus giving the respondent State an opportunity to settle them in such various ways (see, mutatis mutandis, Broniowski, cited above, § 198, and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey, No. 46347/99, § 50, 22 December 2005).
128. If, however, the respondent State fails to adopt such measures following a pilot judgment and continues to violate the Convention, the Court will have no choice but to resume examination of all similar applications pending before it and to take them to judgment so as to ensure effective observance of Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, E.G., cited above, § 28).
2. Application of the principles to the present case
(a) Application of the pilot-judgment procedure
129. The Court notes that the present case can be distinguished in some respects from certain previous "pilot cases", such as Broniowski and Hutten-Czapska, for example. In fact, persons in the same position as the applicant do not necessarily belong to "an identifiable class of citizens" (compare Broniowski, cited above, § 189, and Hutten-Czapska, cited above, § 229). Furthermore, the two aforementioned judgments were the first to identify new structural problems at the root of numerous similar follow-up cases, while the present case comes to be considered after some 200 judgments have amply highlighted the non-enforcement problem in Russia.
130. Notwithstanding these differences, the Court considers it appropria
> 1 2 3 ... 54 55 56 ... 59 60 61
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
