Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 155
August-September 2012
Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.) - 12214/07
Decision 18.9.2012 [Section IV]
Article 35
Article 35-3
Ratione materiae
Complaint relating to implementation of previous European Court judgment and raising no new facts: inadmissible

Facts – In a judgment of 21 December 2000,* the Court found that the applicant in the present case had been ill-treated contrary to Article 3, and that there had been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention as the authorities had not conducted an investigation capable of leading to the punishment of the officers involved in the applicant’s ill-treatment. Two years after the judgment became final, the Government began an investigation into the applicant’s case. This investigation subsequently lapsed into inactivity, allegedly due to the inability to obtain a statement from the applicant. In a fresh application to the Court, the applicant claimed that this investigation had not been adequate.
Law
Article 35 § 3 (a): The Court had consistently emphasised that it does not have jurisdiction to verify whether a Contracting Party has complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of the Court’s judgments. However there may be certain circumstances where measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court raise a new issue undecided by the initial judgment. The determination of the existence of a “new issue” very much depends on the specific circumstances of a given case.
In its judgment of 21 December 2000 concerning the applicant’s first application the Court found that the domestic authorities would have discharged their obligations under the Convention by instituting criminal proceedings. The subsequent appointment of the investigator and the ensuing investigation constituted the individual measures adopted by the Government in order to execute that judgment. Consequently, those steps could not be considered as new factual developments as they formed part of the measures adopted in pursuance of the Court’s initial judgment and thus fell within the supervision exercised by the Committee of Ministers. The Court did not, therefore, have jurisdiction to review those measures. The Court then noted from the Government’s observations that the investigation had lapsed into inaction once difficulties were encountered in obtaining a statement from the applicant. In light of this inactivity it was clear that there had been no developments or any new events that could revive a procedural obligation under Article 3 and thus trigger a possible breach of that provision. Therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s complaint.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible rationae materiae).
(See also Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 32772/02, 30 June 2009, Information Note no. 120; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010, Information Note no. 130; and Ivantoç and Others v. Moldova and Russia, no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011, Information Note no. 146.)
* Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, 21 December 2000, Information Note no. 25.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes