An additional part or version of this document is available.

CM/Del/Dec(2007)987finalE  / 28 February 2007 

Ministers’ Deputies
Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2007)987 15 February 2007
———————————————

987th (DH) meeting, 13-14 February 2007

Decisions adopted at the meeting

———————————————

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 1.1

Decision

The Deputies adopted Resolution ResDH(2007)1, as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions (see Appendix I below).

- 1 case against Turkey
46221/99 Öcalan, judgment of 12/05/2005 - Grand Chamber

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 2

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. stressed that failure by member states to comply with interim measures indicated by the European Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court must be considered as a violation of Article 34 of the Convention;

2. agreed to resume consideration of this case at the latest at their 1007th meeting (16-17 October 2007) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided concerning general measures.

- 1 case against Spain
24668/03 Olaechea Cahuas, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 11/12/2006

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.1

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. recalled that the applicant was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment and that the Court found a breach of his right to a fair trial on account of a non individualised application of aggravating circumstances;

2. took note with interest, in this context, of the progress of the Bill to allow the reopening of criminal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court, which was adopted by the Senate on 14 December 2006 and which in its current wording is also applicable to proceedings criticised by judgments still pending before the Committee of Ministers;

3. welcomed the regime of partial liberty which the applicant has enjoyed since 3 January 2007;

4. decided to resume consideration of this case at their 997th meeting (5-6 June 2007) (DH) in the light of information to be provided on the adoption of the law on reopening of proceedings and on the applicant’s situation, in particular regarding his request for release on parole.

- 1 case against Belgium
50372/99 Goktepe, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.1

Decisions

The Deputies, having considered the information provided by the applicant,

1. urged the Russian authorities rapidly to implement the domestic judgment at issue in this case so as to put an end to the continuing violation of the applicant's property rights;

2. recalled the authorities’ obligation to take the general measures required to prevent new, similar violations;

3. decided to resume consideration of this case at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH) on the basis of the information to be provided by the authorities.

- 1 case against the Russian Federation
68443/01 Baklanov, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.1

Decisions

The Deputies

1. adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)4 in the case of Ahmet Okyay and others as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions (see Appendix II below);

2. decided to resume consideration of these items at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH):

      - in the case of Ahmet Okyay and others: in the light of information to be provided pursuant to the interim resolution;
      - in the cases of Taşkın and others and Öçkan and others: in the light of information to be provided in particular on the outcome of the proceedings pending concerning the annulment of the new operation permit of the mining company and the annulment of the urban plan of the mining area, as well as on the general measures.

- 3 cases against Turkey
46117/99 Taşkın and others, judgment of 10/11/2004, final on 30/03/2005, rectified on 01/02/2005
36220/97 Okyay Ahmet and others, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005
46771/99 Öçkan and others, judgment of 28/03/2006, final on 13/09/20061

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.2

Decisions

The Deputies, having examined the information provided by the Bulgarian authorities on the measures taken or envisaged to comply with the judgment,

1. noted with interest that under the practice well established by the Supreme Administrative Court since the Al-Nashif judgment, it indicates to the competent courts that they must ensure the direct application of the Convention as interpreted by the European Court and thus must examine appeals against deportation orders based on considerations of national security;

2. noted however that the legislation criticised by the Court insofar it did not provide independent supervision of such deportation orders, has not yet been modified;

3. noted with concern in this respect that the draft amendment to the Aliens Law before the Bulgarian Parliament, only provides partial abrogation of the criticised provision excluding measures taken based on considerations of national security from courts’ competence;

4. invited the Bulgarian authorities to take the necessary measures to change the proposed amendment in line with the Convention, and to achieve the legislative reform rapidly;

5. recalled that the applicants still suffer the consequences of the violations found by the European Court in this case insofar as the first applicant is still prevented from going back to Bulgaria and accordingly invited the authorities to remedy this situation;

6. decided to resume consideration of all the necessary measures for the implementation of this judgment at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH), if appropriate on the basis of a draft interim resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat.

- 1 case against Bulgaria
50963/99 Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.2

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. took note of the commitment of the Bulgarian authorities to ensure without delay full compliance with the judgments of the Court, with a view to preventing any further similar violations of the freedom of association and assembly of the applicant organisations and their members;

2. invited the Bulgarian authorities to continue to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the progress made in the adoption and implementation of the general measures required, in particular those concerning local authorities and the police;

3. also invited the Bulgarian authorities to continue to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the applicants’ current situation and took note in this context of the document CM/Inf/DH(2007)8 presented by the Secretariat to the Committee on the issue of individual measures in the case of UMO Ilinden – Pirin and others and decided to declassify it;

4. decided to resume consideration of all the measures necessary for the implementation of these judgments at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH) in the light of information to be provided, in particular on the development of the registration proceedings of UMO Ilinden – Pirin as a political party.

- 4 cases against Bulgaria
59489/00 United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - Pirin and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006
59491/00 United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and others, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

    44079/98 United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

46336/99 Ivanov and others, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.2

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)3, as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions (see Appendix III below);

2. decided to resume consideration of these cases at the latest at their second DH meeting in 2008.

- 54 cases against Italy

        - 54 cases concerning constructive expropriation

31524/96 Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00 and of 30/10/03 final on 30/01/04
41040/98 Acciardi and Campagna, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
71603/01 Binotti, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
63632/00 Binotti, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
20236/02 Capone, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006
62592/00 Capone, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
24638/94 Carbonara and Ventura, judgment of 30/05/00 and judgment of 11/12/03
63861/00 Carletta, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
63620/00 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 1, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
65137/01 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 2, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
67196/01 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 4, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
67197/01 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 5, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
65272/01 Chiro’ Dora No. 3, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
63296/00 Colacrai No. 1, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
63868/00 Colacrai No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
63633/00 Colazzo, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
71175/01 De Pasquale, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
176/04 De Sciscio, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006
44897/98 Di Cola, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006
64111/00 Dominici, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
63242/00 Donati, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
19734/92 F.S. No. 1, Interim Resolution DH(98)209 of 10/07/98
63864/00 Fiore, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
9119/03 Genovese, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006
16041/02 Giacobbe and others, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006
35941/03 Gianni and others, judgment of 30/03/2006, final on 30/06/2006
60124/00 Gravina, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
18791/03 Grossi and others, judgment of 06/07/2006, final on 06/10/2006
58858/00 Guiso-Gallisay, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

35638/03 Immobiliare Cerro S.a.s., judgment of 23/02/2006, final on 23/05/2006
62876/00 Istituto Diocesano Per Il Sostentamento Del Clero, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
20935/03 Izzo, judgment of 02/03/2006, final on 02/06/2006
63240/00 La Rosa and 3 others No. 6, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
58119/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 1, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
58386/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 3, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
63238/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 4, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
63239/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 5, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006
63241/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 7, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
63285/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 8, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005
56578/00 Lanteri, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
12912/04 Lo Bue and others, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006
61211/00 Maselli No. 2, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006
63866/00 Maselli, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
43663/98 Mason and others, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
36818/97 Pasculli, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
69907/01 Prenna and others, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006
14793/02 Sciarotta and others, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006
43662/98 Scordino No. 3, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
67790/01 Scozzari and others, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006
67198/01 Serrao, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
77822/01 Serrilli, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006
77823/01 Serrilli Pia Gloria and others, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
213/04 Ucci, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006
12894/04 Zaffuto and others, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.2

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. took note with interest of the measures taken so far by the Russian authorities to resolve the structural problem revealed by the Court's judgments;

2. encouraged the competent Russian authorities to make further efforts to limit use of detention on remand, and in particular to consider the avenues suggested in the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2007)4 with a view to a comprehensive solution of the problem;

3. decided to resume consideration of these cases at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH) in order to examine the question of the declassification of the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2007)4;

4. decided to postpone consideration of these cases to their 1007th meeting (16-17 October 2007) on the basis of further information to be provided on further progress achieved in the adoption of the general measures.

- 11 cases against the Russian Federation
46082/99 Klyakhin, judgment of 30/11/05, final on 06/06/05
21153/02 Bednov, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/20062
11886/05 Dolgova, judgment of 02/03/2006, final on 03/07/20063
31008/02 Fedorov and Fedorova, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
70276/01 Gusinskiy, judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004

6847/02 Khudoyorov, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 12/04/20064
75039/01 Korchuganova, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006
55669/00 Nakhmanovitch, arrêt du 02/03/2006, definitive le 02/06/20065
45100/98 Panchenko, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005
54071/00 Rokhlina, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005
46133/99+ Smirnova, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.2

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. invited the Turkish authorities to continue to provide information as regards the reopening of the investigation into Mr Kakoulli’s killing;

2. urged the authorities rapidly to draw up an action plan regarding the general measures taken or envisaged fully to execute the Court’s judgment in particular with a view to preventing the use of excessive force by Turkish soldiers on guard duty along the cease-fire lines in Cyprus;

3. decided to resume consideration of this item at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH).

- 1 case against Turkey
38595/97 Kakoulli, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.2

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. deplored the fact that the Turkish authorities had as yet taken no individual measure to put an end to the violation found by the Court, the applicant still being subject to an arrest warrant with a view to the execution of his sentence;

2. decided to resume consideration of this item at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on the individual measures, if appropriate, on the basis of a draft interim resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat;

3. invited the authorities also to provide information on the general measures taken or envisaged to remedy the shortcomings in the Turkish legislation identified by the European Court in this judgment.

- 1 case against Turkey
39437/98 Ülke, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.3

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)2, as it appears in the Volume of Resolutions (see Appendix IV below);

2. decided to resume consideration of these cases at the latest before 1 November 2008.

- 2183 cases against Italy
2183 cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings
(see also, for more detailed information, CM/Inf/DH(2005)31 and addendum 1 and 2, CM/Inf/DH(2005)33, CM/Inf(2005)39

* * *

987thDH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.3

Decision

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of the measures taken towards the execution of the Court’s judgment at their 988th meeting (21 February 2007).

- 1 case against Moldova and the Russian Federation
48787/99 Ilaşcu and others, judgment of 08/07/2004, Grand Chamber, Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)42, ResDH(2005)84, ResDH(2006)11 and ResDH(2006)26

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.3

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. deplored the fact that that the Turkish authorities have taken no individual measure following the judgment, despite the Committee’s repeated calls to abide by its obligation, “under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to redress the violations found in respect of the applicant through the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings or other appropriate ad hoc measures” (Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113);

2. noted that the applicant continues to suffer from the grave consequences of certain serious violations of the right to a fair trial found by the Court, which appear to cast serious doubts on the outcome of the domestic proceedings at issue (cf. Recommendation Rec(2000)2);

3. decided to resume consideration of this case at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on the individual measures taken or envisaged and to consider, if appropriate, a new draft Interim Resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat.

- 1 case against Turkey
28490/95 Hulki Güneş, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)113

* * *

987th DH meeting – 14 February 2007
Section 4.3

Decisions

The Deputies,

1. noted that the “Immovable Property Commission”, set up in northern Cyprus, invited the applicant to send an application presenting her claims;

2. noted that the applicant invited the Turkish authorities to discuss the follow-up to be given to the judgment;

3. stressed the exceptional character of the individual measures in this case, having regard to the fact that their adoption has been awaited since the judgment of the European Court on the merits delivered in 1996;

4. invited the Turkish authorities to adopt without further delay concrete measures in favour of the applicant;

5. decided to resume consideration of this case at their 992nd meeting (3-4 April 2007) (DH).

- 1 case against Turkey
15318/89 Loizidou, judgment of 18/12/96 (merits), Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105, ResDH(2001)80

* * *

Appendix I

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Resolution ResDH(2007)16

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Öcalan against Turkey

(Application No. 46221/99, Grand Chamber judgment of 12 May 2005, final on 12 May 2005)

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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the final Grand Chamber judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee on 12 May 2005;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern several shortcomings in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a Turkish national charged with terrorist offences and sentenced to death by the Ankara State Security Court in June 1999 (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Turkey’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information and observations submitted by the Government and by the applicant under the Committee’s Rules for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements (see details in the Appendix);

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, 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

      - general measures preventing, similar violations;

Recalling that in this case the question of individual measures was addressed already in the European Court’s judgment which underlined that “in cases where an individual had been convicted by a court which did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation. However, the specific remedial measures, if any, required of a respondent State in order to discharge its obligations under Article 46 had to depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case and be determined in the light of the terms of the Court’s judgment in that case, and with due regard to the […] case-law of the Court” (see §210 of the Grand Chamber judgment in this case);

Recalling further the constant practice of the Committee of Ministers and of contracting states in the execution of judgments by the Court, as restated e.g. in the Committee’s Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in the explanatory memorandum thereto and in many resolutions adopted in the course of the Committee’s execution supervision;

Considering in particular that an initial judicial examination of the need for a re-trial in order to remedy the violations established may be necessary in order to take into account the particular circumstances of each case, and that such an initial examination does not have to meet all the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention;

Considering furthermore:

      - that the applicant requested the reopening of the domestic proceedings impugned by the Court;
      - that the competent Turkish court examined the merits of the request, and thus refused, in the light of Article 90 of the Constitution and Turkey’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention, to apply the temporal limitations contained in Article 311/2 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure to this case;
      - that the competent court concluded, when assessing whether or not a full re-trial was required to remedy the violations established by the Court, that this was not the case as neither the new submissions made on behalf of the applicant by his lawyers nor a full re-examination of the case file cast any serious doubts on the reliability of the impugned conviction;

Considering also that the applicant’s death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment;

Having examined the observations submitted by the applicant and the government with regard to the above- mentioned proceedings;

Concluding that the re-examination procedure above is in conformity with Turkey’s obligations under Article 46 as far as individual measures are concerned;

Taking note, in this context, of the information provided by the applicant’s lawyers that they have lodged an application with the European Court concerning the above-mentioned domestic proceedings for a re-examination of the applicant’s case, but recalling that the Committee of Ministers’ decision under Article 46, paragraph 2, in no way prejudges the Court’s examination of the new complaints;

Considering as regards the general measures which the respondent state has been called to adopt without delay to prevent new, similar violations of the Conventions, that such measures were adopted as described in part II of the Appendix to this resolution;

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close its examination.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2007)1

Information and observations about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Öcalan against Turkey

      Case summary

The case concerns several shortcomings in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a Turkish national charged with terrorist offences and sentenced to death by the Ankara State Security Court in June 1999. The judgment was in every respect upheld by the Court of Cassation in November 1999. Following the legislative reform abolishing the death penalty in peacetime, the State Security Court in October 2002 commuted the applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.

With regard to the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the European Court found that he was not brought promptly before a judge following his arrest in February 1999, as he had spent a minimum of seven days in police custody beforehand (violation of Article 5§3) and that there was no effective remedy by which he could have had the lawfulness of his continued detention in police custody decided promptly by a court (violation of Article 5§4). In this context the European Court observed that under the circumstances of the case (the applicant being kept in total isolation, possessing no legal knowledge and accused of serious charges), Article 128 § 4 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in November 1992 (which entitled suspects to apply for habeas corpus to the district judge), could not be regarded as an effective remedy since the applicant had not been able to make use of it (violation of Article 6§1).

Concerning the trial, the European Court found a lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in view of the presence of a military judge (replaced in June 1999) during part of the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Furthermore, the European Court held that the trial had been unfair (violation of Article 6§1 together with Article 6§3(b) and (c)) due to:

      - the inadequate time and facilities for preparation of the defence;
      - the restrictions on legal assistance, the applicant having been denied access to a lawyer while in police custody;
      - the fact that he could not consult his lawyers out of the hearing third parties;
      - the fact that he was restricted to two one-hour visits with his lawyers per week;
      - the fact that he did not have access to the case file of 17,000 pages until two weeks before trial.

Finally, the European Court held that to sentence to death a person who had not had a fair trial amounted to inhuman treatment (Article 3).

      I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Costs and expenses

Total

Paid on

120 000 €

120 000 €

19/08/2005
Plus 138 € default interest

b) Individual measures – the question of retrial

- The applicant’s request for a retrial

A formal request for a retrial was lodged on 2 February 2006.

On 5 May 2006, the Ankara 11th Assize Court rejected the request, relying on Article 311/2 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which excludes the possibility of retrial on the basis of European Court judgments rendered during the period when the present judgment was rendered.

The applicant filed an objection to this decision on 29 May 2006 and the case was referred to the Istanbul 14th Assize Court (in accordance with Article 268 CCP). Final judgment was rendered on 21 July 2006. The 14th Assize Court did not find the reliance at first instance on Article 311/2 CCP a sufficient ground for rejecting the request. Stressing the binding nature of the European Court’s judgment and Turkey’s international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, as enshrined in Article 46 of the Convention and acknowledged in the new Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, the court decided to examine the merits of the applicant’s request. The court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant’s lawyers in their submissions to it and the contents of the case file as a whole and reached the conclusion that it was not necessary to carry out any additional investigations or further hearings. Having considered the nature of the crime and the evidence in the case file (including the applicant’s confessions) and having concluded that the violations established by the European Court could not change the applicant’s conviction and that his submissions before it were unsubstantiated, the 14th Assize Court dismissed the request as devoid of merit.

- The applicant’s position regarding the execution of the European Court’s judgment in the light of the rejection of his request for a retrial

In their submissions dated 30 September 2005, 22 February 2006, 10 April 2006, 2 October 2006 and 29 January 2007, the applicant’s lawyers in particular asked for:

a) the judgment of the European Court to be executed;
b) the provision excluding a request for a retrial for applicants falling into a certain time period - Article 311/2 of Act no. 5271- to be removed;
c) the legal provisions of Article 151 of Act No. 5271 and Article 59 of Act No. 5275 which restrict defence rights to be removed;
d) the non-acceptance as individual measure of the decision taken on their request for a retrial as in particular it::
- did not respect the requirements of the Court’s judgment in the case;
- was beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the court in question;

      - was not adopted after proceedings respecting the applicant’s defence rights so that once again the applicant was unable to present the arguments which he had been denied, in violation of the Convention, to present at the original impugned trial;
      - had not been independent;

e) an end to any special prison conditions for their client.

The government’s position on the above issues is reflected below under Section III.

      II. General measures

1) Failure to bring the applicant promptly before a judge after his arrest (Article 5§3): legislative reform commenced in 2001, see case of Sakık and others against Turkey (Final Resolution DH (2002)110). Article 91 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 01/06/2005, today provides for a right of detainees to see a judge within 24 hours in regular cases and 3 days in exceptional cases, the decision to extend to be taken by the prosecutor and open to an appeal to the court.

2) Lack of a remedy by which the applicant might have the lawfulness of his continued detention in police custody decided promptly by a court (Article 5§4): § 91 of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure as of 1/06/2005 now provides for a sufficient remedy, which extends the safeguards previously existing in Turkish law (see aforementioned final resolution in the case of Sakık).

3) Independence and impartiality of state security courts: the presence of military judges was abolished in 1999, see Çıraklar against Turkey (Final Resolution DH99(555)). Subsequently, state security courts were abolished following the constitutional amendments of May 2004.

4) Unfairness of the trial due to inadequate time and facilities for preparation of defence and restriction on legal assistance (Article 6§1 together with Article 6§3(b) and (c): Shortly before the 960th meeting (March 2006), the respondent state provided information on the new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since 1/06/2005. This legislation introduced new provisions to guarantee defence rights, providing in particular for a defence lawyer to be assigned automatically in cases with a minimum sentence of 5 years (Article 150 (3)); giving the lawyer access to the case-file (including the right to make copies) from the date the indictment is accepted by the court (Article 153 (4)); and providing that the suspect or the accused may meet with the defence lawyers at any time and in such circumstances that they will not be heard by others, without requiring a power of attorney, and that correspondence between the defence lawyer and the suspect or accused may not be monitored (Article 154).

5) Imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial, amounting to inhuman treatment (Article 3), Law No. 4771 of 09 August 2002 abolished the death penalty in peacetime.
At the 940th meeting, the Turkish authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court had been translated and published on the web site of the Ministry of Justice and that it will also be published in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice.

      III. The government’s position

The government considered that the above measures have provided adequate individual redress to the applicant and stressed more particularly in its observations of 4 February 2007:

      - that the domestic court had refused to apply the temporal limitations in Article 311/2 and had examined the need of a re-trial on the basis of a full re-examination of the case file in the light of the applicant’s new submissions before it;
      - that the domestic court had acted within its competence;
      - that the proceedings had respected the rights of the defence;
      - that the domestic court had acted in full independence.

Moreover, the government considered that the applicant’s complaints regarding his present prison conditions were unrelated to the execution of the present judgment.

The government also considered that the general measures adopted would prevent new similar violations of the Convention. The government in particular underlined the importance of the direct effect given to the Convention and the Court’s case law under the new Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution. The government expressed its conviction that this direct effect would ensure that the new legislation will continuously be applied in conformity with the Convention’s requirements.

Appendix II

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)47

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
in the case of Ahmet Okyay and others against Turkey


(Application No. 36220/97, judgment of 12 July 2005, final on 12 October 2005)

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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the final judgment of the Court in this case transmitted to the Committee on 12 October 2005;

Recalling that the violation of the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention established by the Court in this case concerns the national authorities’ failure to enforce domestic courts’ orders given in 1996 and upheld on appeal in 1998 to shut down three thermal-power plants (namely, Gökova (Kemerköy), Yeniköy and Yatağan), operated jointly by the Ministry of Energy and National Resources and a public utility company, as they polluted the environment in south-west Turkey in contravention of relevant Turkish environmental protection legislation (the operation of the plants was notably found to cause environmental harm and was carried out without the permits required by law);

Recalling in particular that the domestic courts’ orders were motivated by the lack of equipment for filtering sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide gases discharged from the plant’s chimneys and ordered that desulphurisation units be installed in order to filter 95% of the sulphur dioxide;

Recalling that a finding of the violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, 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

      - general measures preventing similar violations;

Recalling that since the Committee’s first examination of the case, the authorities have been repeatedly invited to comply with the domestic court orders in accordance with their obligation under Article 6 of the Convention, as set out in the Court’s judgment;

Noting that the Ministry of Energy and National Resources indicated already in the national proceedings in 1996 that contracts for the necessary improvements had been signed;

Noting that the necessary equipment has still not been installed and that, according to the information provided by the authorities, the power plants are in consequence thereof being operated at minimum capacity in order to maintain the lowest level gas emission and that administrative and judicial fines have been imposed for excessive pollution, in particular on the Yatağan power plant;

Deploring the fact that the domestic court orders to close the power plants remain unexecuted more than 6 years after they became final and one year after the Court’s judgment, and that the plants still continue to operate without proper filtering equipment;

Stressing that prolonged non-compliance with a judicial decision or injunction renders the right of access to a court illusory and the underlying legislation inoperative, thus leading to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law;

Stressing that the importance of speedy compliance with the judicial order is all the greater in the present case since the outcome of the proceedings is decisive for the applicants’ civil right to a healthy environment as guaranteed by the Turkish Constitution and relevant legislation;

Stressing also the importance of ensuring strict respect for domestic court judgments in the field of environmental protection;

Noting with concern the risk for a large group of people to be affected by the violation at issue;

Insisting, accordingly, on Turkey’s obligation to take without further delay all necessary individual and general measures required by the Court’s judgment;

      URGES the Turkish authorities to enforce the domestic court order imposing either closure of the power plants or installation of the necessary filtering equipment without further delay;

      INVITES the Turkish authorities to furnish information on the general measures envisaged to prevent violations similar to that at issue in the present judgment.

Appendix III

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)3
Systemic violations of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions
through “indirect expropriation” by Italy

(adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007
at the 987th 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 (“the Convention”),

Considering the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) finding violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention by Italy on account of the resort to what is known as “indirect expropriation”, a practice characterised by:

    - emergency occupation of land by local administrative authorities pursuant to Law No. 85 of 1971, without any formal expropriation procedure, the occupation subsequently becoming irrevocable on account of the transformation of the property by the realisation of public works;
    - the lack of clear and predictable rules covering the transfer of property and compensation;
    - the absence of adequate mechanisms to afford redress, including the inadequacy of compensation awarded;

Recalling that the Committee of Ministers has been examining the problems at the origin of these violations and the means of solving them since 2000 in the framework of the execution of two judgments against Italy, namely the cases of Belvedere Alberghiera and Carbonara and Ventura, as well as many similar subsequent judgments (see appendix II);

Recalling the declarations by the Committee of Ministers as well as the Warsaw Summit underlining the importance of executing the Court’s judgments promptly, which is particularly necessary in cases like these which reveal structural problems and thus give rise to an influx of new applications before the Court;

Stressing states’ obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to comply with the Court’s judgments by adopting individual measures to erase as far as possible the consequences of violations for the applicants (estitution in integrum) as well general measures to put an end to any ongoing situation and avoid new, similar violations;

Having noted with interest that following the initial judgments related to this problem Italy adopted, through Presidential Decree No. 327 of 8 June 2001, a general “Consolidated Text” on expropriation, Article 43 of which authorised public authorities to issue formal deeds of expropriation which are valid for the future but also acknowledge the unlawfulness of such acquisitions in the past;

Noting in this respect that in the government’s view (see Appendix I) the new procedure will constitute a break with the practice of indirect expropriation and will rule out any undue interference by the administration with property rights as recognised by the Convention, provided it is correctly and consistently implemented.

Underlining that the Court noted contradictory applications found in past case-law as well as contradictions between case-law and statute law, including the Consolidated Text (see judgment in the case of Prenna and Others of 9 February 2006, paragraphs 40-43, 65);

Supporting the government’s firm intention to do everything in its power to bring procedures in this area into complete conformity with the obligations flowing from the Convention and the Court’s judgments (see appendix I);

Welcoming the recent case-law of the Italian Council of State (Decision No. 2 of 2005) which contains some provisions needed to sanction unlawful action by administrative authorities and secure the return of property to its owner irrespective of any transformation carried out;

Being of the opinion that this case-law must be followed by the Italian judiciary and further developed in order to overcome the remaining points of uncertainty inherent in Article 43 of the “Consolidated Text”;

Welcoming generally the increasing efforts made by the senior Italian Courts to give direct effect to the Court’s judgments and the government’s will to have this direct effect consolidated and strengthened at every level of the Italian judicial and administrative systems;

Convinced that the measures taken or to be taken in national law must result in adequate and effective redress which complies with the requirements of the Convention as embodied in the Court’s case-law;

Considering that redress mechanisms must also, to the fullest possible extent, allow victims of violations already found by the European Court to be fully compensated, given that the Court has systematically reserved the question of just satisfaction, leaving it initially to the Italian authorities to provide such reparation;

Noting with satisfaction the new law which aims to discourage resort to indirect expropriation by providing a right to oblige responsible administrations to cover the cost of reparation due following the finding of a violation by the European Court (Article 1, paragraph 1217, of Law No. 296 of 2006);

Being of the view that this law will further contribute to preventing public authorities from benefiting from their own unlawful acts,

ENCOURAGES the Italian authorities to continue their efforts and rapidly take all further measures needed to bring an end definitively to the practice of “indirect expropriation” and to ensure that any occupation of land by the public authority complies with the requirement of legality as required by the Convention;

INVITES the authorities to ensure that redress mechanisms are rapid, efficient and able to the fullest possible extent of discharging the Court of its function under Article 41 of the Convention;

DECIDES to continue supervision of the measures required by the Court’s judgments and to resume consideration of the cases at issue in the light of the progress achieved, at the latest at their second human rights meeting in 2008.

Appendix I

Information provided by the Italian government to the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgements of the Court concerning indirect expropriation in Italy

Through Presidential Decree No. 327 of 8 June 2001 (modified in 2002 and in force since 30 June 2003), introducing a general Consolidated Text on expropriation, Italy has improved the procedures for expropriation in the pubic interest.

Article 2 of this Consolidated Text provides that each expropriation must be carried out according to law; Articles 20 et seq require that expropriation proceedings are based on respect for the rules in force.

Thus, in general and besides exceptional, urgent public works, authorities may no longer occupy property unless or until they own it.

Article 43 authorises the public authority to issue “deeds of expropriation”, valid ex nunc. Such deeds do not regularise past illegalities, but rather define the situation with reference to the future, guaranteeing a just balance between the public interest (which must be particularly important and is subject to the strict supervision of a magistrate) and that of the individual, who is entitled to receive, within a reasonable time and in addition to reimbursement of the market value of the property, overall damages in respect of the prejudice sustained up until the date of issue of the deed.

The travaux préparatoires of the Consolidated Text explicitly show that the aim of this article is to rule out indirect expropriation so as to give full effect to the relevant judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights since 2000.

The recent provisions and decisions have not yet been examined in depth by the European Court which has so far gone no further than declaring that indirect expropriation should not be regarded as a valid alternative to a proper expropriation procedure, referring in doing so to the parallel declaration by the Council of State contained in the decision mentioned above (see the Prenna judgment, §§43-66).

The prime competence for ensuring respect of Article 43 lies with the magistrates of administrative tribunals, one of whose institutional roles is to protect the interests of individuals against illicit acts by public authorities (see decision No. 191 of 2006 of the Constitutional Court).

The higher administrative courts in Italy, which are competent for disputes concerning the application of Article 43, have already interpreted the article in the light of the requirements of the Convention as they flow from the European Court’s judgments (Council of State, Plenary Assembly, decision No. 2 of 2005; Sicilian Regional Council of Administrative Justice, decisions Nos. 934 of 2005 and 440 and 442 of 2006).

In the government’s view, the procedure provided by Article 43 might fulfil the requirements of the Convention provided that it is interpreted along the following lines:

1. The application and interpretation of Article 43 must be clear, consistent and predictable so as to embody the relevant discretionary powers of the state and thus satisfy the Convention’s requirement relating to the quality of the law;
2. The procedure provided by Article 43 is not an alternative to the ordinary procedure provided for expropriation and thus is not generally applicable: on the contrary it is an exceptional measure to be used only in case of demonstrably urgent public interest;
3. Formal acquisition must be established promptly and only by the relevant public administrative authority;
4. If no acquisition is thus established, under Article 43, the property must be promptly restored;
5. Under no circumstance may acquisition of property be considered automatic on the grounds that public works or other transformations have been carried out;
6. The procedure must, as far as possible, be applied to all cases of illicit occupation even if this came about before the entry into force of the Consolidated Text.

The government is encouraging all national authorities to apply the Consolidated Text in this way so as to comply with its obligations under the Convention and the Court’s judgments, i.e., to redress the violations committed and to prevent further similar violations. The government considers that the direct effect recently given to the Court’s judgments by the higher Italian courts in various fields of jurisdiction establishes the conditions needed in order to satisfy the Convention’s requirements through application of the Consolidated Text. The government encourages and supports the broadest possible extension of the direct effect of the Court’s judgments in Italian law.

Beyond the Consolidated Text, another significant measure has been taken to discourage public authorities from having recourse to indirect expropriation: Law No. 296 of 2006 (Article 1, paragraph 1217) provides that damages awarded to individuals in respect of illegal occupation of land are covered by the budget of the public authority responsible. The law also provides the possibility for the public authority concerned to sue the individual official at the origin of the illegal act. The government takes the view that that this measure will not fail to contribute to preventing violations similar to those found in the cases at issue.

Appendix II – List of cases

31524/96 Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00 and of 30/10/03 final on 30/01/04
41040/98 Acciardi and Campagna, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
71603/01 Binotti, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
63632/00 Binotti, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
20236/02 Capone, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

62592/00 Capone, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
24638/94 Carbonara and Ventura, judgment of 30/05/00 and judgment of 11/12/03
63861/00 Carletta, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
63620/00 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 1, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
65137/01 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 2, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
67196/01 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 4, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
67197/01 Chiro’ and 3 others No. 5, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
65272/01 Chiro’ Dora No. 3, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
63296/00 Colacrai No. 1, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
63868/00 Colacrai No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
63633/00 Colazzo, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
71175/01 De Pasquale, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
176/04 De Sciscio, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006
44897/98 Di Cola, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006
64111/00 Dominici, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
63242/00 Donati, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
19734/92 F.S. No. 1, Interim Resolution DH(98)209 of 10/07/98
63864/00 Fiore, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
9119/03 Genovese, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 03/07/2006
16041/02 Giacobbe and others, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006
35941/03 Gianni and others, judgment of 30/03/2006, final on 30/06/2006
60124/00 Gravina, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
18791/03 Grossi and others, judgment of 06/07/2006, final on 06/10/2006
58858/00 Guiso-Gallisay, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006
35638/03 Immobiliare Cerro S.a.s., judgment of 23/02/2006, final on 23/05/2006
62876/00 Istituto Diocesano Per Il Sostentamento Del Clero, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
20935/03 Izzo, judgment of 02/03/2006, final on 02/06/2006
63240/00 La Rosa and 3 others No. 6, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
58119/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 1, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006
58386/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 3, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
63238/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 4, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
63239/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 5, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006
63241/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 7, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
63285/00 La Rosa and Alba No. 8, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005
56578/00 Lanteri, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006
12912/04 Lo Bue and others, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006
61211/00 Maselli No. 2, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006
63866/00 Maselli, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
43663/98 Mason and others, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
36818/97 Pasculli, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
69907/01 Prenna and others, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006
14793/02 Sciarotta and others, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006
43662/98 Scordino No. 3, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005
67790/01 Scozzari and others, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006
67198/01 Serrao, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006
77822/01 Serrilli, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006
77823/01 Serrilli Pia Gloria and others, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006
213/04 Ucci, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006
12894/04 Zaffuto and others, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006

Appendix IV

COUNCIL OF EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

Interim Resolution ResDH(2007)2
concerning the problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings in Italy

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007,
at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Articles 32 and 54 and present Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”),

Considering the large number of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) and decisions of the Committee of Ministers since the early 1980s finding structural problems underlying the excessive length of civil, criminal and administrative proceedings in Italy;

Recalling the major reforms undertaken in respect of civil and criminal proceedings as well as proceedings before courts of audit which led the Committee to close its examination of these aspect of the problem in the 1990s (see Resolutions DH(1992)26, (1995)82 and (1994)26);

Recalling that given the subsequent, continued influx of new findings of violations the Committee resumed its examination of these proceedings;

Recalling that the Committee decided to keep these cases on its agenda until such time as effective reforms were implemented and the reversal of the national tendency was definitely confirmed (Interim Resolution DH(2000)135);

Taking note of the numerous efforts made by the Italian authorities by the adoption of various general reforms and different specific measures which, nonetheless, have not led to satisfactory results to date.

Recalling that the dysfunction of the working of justice remains and in so doing represents an important danger, not least to the Rule of Law;

Welcoming the establishment in 2001 (Law No. 89) of a domestic remedy to compensate victims and reduce the pressure on the Court, and furthermore acknowledging the efforts of the Court of Cassation to ensure an interpretation in line with the Court’s case-law;

Noting also the constant increase in the amounts paid in compensation by the state in this respect;

Recalling that in these circumstances the Committee, in December 2005, demanded in its last Interim Resolution, ResDH(2005)114, the establishment of a new strategy, relying in particular on a reinforcement of political support, at the highest level, for an interdisciplinary approach to which all the main actors of the judicial system would contribute;

Welcoming the various declarations and speeches made during 2006 by the President of the Republic, the Head of the Government and the Minister of Justice indicating the authorities’ full awareness of the seriousness of the problem and their determination to give it priority;

Welcoming also Parliament’s approval of Law No. 12 of 9 January 2006 assigning competence to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers to co-ordinate the execution of the Court’s judgments and to keep Parliament regularly informed of progress achieved;

Noting that in its most recent report to the Committee of Ministers in November 2006 (CM/Inf/DH(2007)9), the Italian government mentioned a number of proposed legislative reforms to judicial proceedings together with an ambitious project for the computerisation of civil proceedings (processo telematico);

Considering nonetheless that these new measures only address certain aspects of the complex problem of the length of proceedings in Italy, which still needs a complete, in-depth analysis for an overall strategy to be presented;

Noting that in September 2006 a ministerial commission was set up, mandated to submit proposals to reduce the delays in proceedings;

Stressing the importance of organising effective follow-up and co-ordination, at the highest national level, of the action need to ensure the execution of the judgments and decisions concerned and noting in this context the possibilities offered by Law No. 12 of 9 January 2006;

Welcoming the Italian authorities’ expressed intention to co-operate regularly and closely with the Secretariat of the Council of Europe so that the Committee of Ministers may be kept informed of their thinking in relation to the strategy to be implemented and progress achieved;

Recalling in this context the rich comparative experience accumulated, not least in the framework of the supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgments, concerning various means of resolving the problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings;

Convinced that this co-operation and reflection should fully involve the main actors of the Italian judicial system,

URGES the Italian authorities at the highest level to hold to their political commitment to resolving the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings;

INVITES the authorities to undertake interdisciplinary action, involving the main judicial actors, co-ordinated at the highest political level, with a view to drawing up a new, effective strategy;

DECIDES to resume consideration of the progress achieved at the latest before 1 November 2008 and asks the Italian authorities and the Secretariat to keep the Committee informed of the progress made in setting up the new national strategy in this respect.

1 Cette affaire figure également à la rubrique 3.a

2 This case also appears in Section 3.a

3 This case also appears in Section 3.a

4 This case also appears in Section 3.b

5 This case also appears in Section 3.a

6 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007 at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies

7 Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2007 at the 987th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents