Ministers’ Deputies

    Annotated agenda and decisions adopted

    CM/Del/Dec(2011)1115 10 June 2011



    1115th meeting (DH), 7-8 June 2011



No.

Case

State

Application

1

CAKA GROUP

ALBANIA

44023/02

2

DRIZA GROUP

ALBANIA

33771/02

3

MELTEX LTD AND MESROP MOVSESYAN

ARMENIA

32283/04

4

FATULLAYEV + MAHMUDOV AND AGAZADE

AZERBAIJAN

40984/07

5

M.S.S.

BELGIUM / GREECE

30696/09

6

SEJDIC AND FINCI

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

27996/06

7

NACHOVA AND HRISTOVA GROUP

BULGARIA

43577/98

8

RAZA

BULGARIA

31465/08

9

VELIKOVA GROUP

BULGARIA

41488/98

10

RANTSEV

CYPRUS / RUSSIAN FEDERATION

25965/04

11

D.H. AND OTHERS

CZECH REPUBLIC

57325/00

12

BOUSARRA

FRANCE

25672/07

13

KLAUS AND YURI KILADZE

GEORGIA

7975/06

14

RUMPF GROUP

GERMANY

46344/06

15

VASSILIOS ATHANASIOU AND OTHERS + MANIOS GROUP

GREECE

50973/08

16

OLARU GROUP

MOLDOVA

476/07

17

HUTTEN-CZAPSKA

POLAND

35014/97

18

TYSIAC

POLAND

5410/03

19

BARBU ANGHELESCU (No. 1) GROUP

ROMANIA

46430/99

20

BRAGADIREANU GROUP

ROMANIA

22088/04

21

STRAIN AND OTHERS GROUP

ROMANIA

57001/00

22

KHASHIYEV GROUP

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

57942/00

23

ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS RADKO & PAUNKOVSKI

"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

74651/01

24

ULKE

TURKEY

39437/98

25

GONGADZE

UKRAINE

34056/02

26

YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV +

ZHOVNER GROUP

UKRAINE

40450/04

56848/00

27

AL-SAADOON & MUFDHI

UNITED KINGDOM

61498/08

28

HIRST (No. 2) + GREENS and MT

UNITED KINGDOM

74025/01

29

S. AND MARPER

UNITED KINGDOM

30562/04

    ALBANIA

Application 44023/02

Final on 08/03/2010

CAKA GROUP v. Albania

Enhanced procedure

44023/02 CAKA, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

847/05 BERHANI, judgment of 27/05/2010, final on 04/10/2010

12315/04 LASKA and LIKA, judgment of 20/04/2010, final on 20/07/2010

Case description: Unfairness of criminal proceedings due notably to:

- in the case of Caka, the failure to secure the appearance at the applicants' trial of certain witnesses and to the first instance court's failure to have due regard to the testimonies of four witnesses given in the applicant's favor (violation of Article 6 § 1 combined with Article 6 § 3 (d) );

- in the case of Berhani, the failure to secure the appearance at the applicant's trial of certain witnesses, the lack of an identification parade of persons and items and the lack of convincing evidence in the domestic court's judgments justifying the applicant's conviction (violation of Article 6§1);

- in the case of Laska and Lika, the failure to remedy irregularities at the applicants' trial, which occurred at the investigation stage and which were related to the identification of the suspects (violation of article 6§1).

Status of execution before the meeting: On 6/04/2011, the Albanian authorities provided a revised action plan concerning individual and general measures in the cases of Caka and Berhani.

Individual measures: Under Article 41, the European Court held that where it finds that an applicant has been convicted without being afforded one of the safeguards of a fair trial, the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.

In the case of Laska and Lika, under Article 46 of the Convention, the European Court held that Albanian criminal legal system does not provide the possibility of re-examining cases, including reopening of domestic proceedings, in the event of a finding by the European Court of a serious violation of an applicant's right to a fair trial; that it is up to the Albanian authorities to introduce a new remedy that would enable applicants to have the situation repaired or to remove any obstacles in domestic law that might prevent the applicants' situation from being adequately redressed.

The Albanian authorities intend to introduce in the Code of Criminal Procedure a possibility to request the reopening of criminal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court. Under the Action plan provided, the legislative amendments will be adopted by the Council of Ministers in the last quarter of 2011. No deadline has been provided for its adoption by the Albanian Parliament. To date, the authorities do not envisage taking any measure until the entry into force of the legislative reform.

However, urgent individual measures are required for the applicants. In fact, the applicants Caka and Berhani are currently detained. The applicants Laska and Lika have been released on parole but they risk going back to prison, as the lifting of their release on parole has been requested by the Attorney General (request currently pending before the courts) (applicants’ letter of 15/03/2011).

General measures: Given the different shortcomings in the proceedings before the domestic courts, highlighted by the judgments, general measures have been taken and envisaged, in particular in the field of training for judges and other authorities concerned. Their assessment is under way.

    Links to relevant documents

    Action plan / action report - case of Caka DH-DD(2011)313Erev

    Action plan / action report - case of Berhani DH-DD(2011)314Erev

    Action plan / action report - case of Laska and Lika DH-DD(2011)434Erev

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that the applicants were sentenced to prison in criminal proceedings found to be unfair by the European Court and noted that currently only the applicant Lika has been released on parole until the end of his sentence, while the applicants Caka and Berhani are detained and the applicant Laska, temporarily released on parole, must return to prison;

    2. recalled that the European Court found that the most appropriate form of redress would be a trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings – if requested by the applicants – in due course and in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention;

    3. noted with satisfaction that, pending legislative changes announced by the authorities during the previous examination of these issues, the Constitutional Court, in its decision No. 20 of 1/06/2011 in the case of Xheraj, considered that Articles 10 and 450 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide a legal basis for reopening criminal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, and remitted the case before the Supreme Court to decide on its reopening;

    4. consequently, emphasising the urgency of remedying the situation of the applicants, invited the respondent state to keep the Committee informed on the follow-up of the case-law of the Constitutional Court by the Supreme Court in the cases pending before the Committee of which it is or will be seised.

    * * *

Application 33771/02

Final on 02/06/2008

DRIZA GROUP v. Albania

Enhanced procedure

33771/02 Driza, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

7352/03 Beshiri and others, judgment of 22/08/2006, final on 12/02/2007

38222/02 Ramadhi and 5 others, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

45264/04 Hamzaraj No.1, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009

12306/04 Nuri, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009

35720/04+ Vrioni and others, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009 and of 07/12/2010, final on 11/04/20111

10508/02 Gjonbocari and others, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008

6397/04 Bushati and others, judgment of 8/12/2009, final on 8/03/2010

Case description: Structural problem of failure to enforce final domestic court and administrative decisions relating to the right of the applicants to restitution of or compensation (whether pecuniary or in kind) for property nationalised under the communist regime (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6§1.

Ineffectiveness of the remedies introduced by the Property Act to obtain compensation (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1).

Bailiffs' failure to secure enforcement of a Supreme Court's decision, which confirmed the applicants' property claim and ordered the occupiers to cease the occupation of the land without title (violation of Article 6§1, in the case of Bushati).

Lack of legal certainty and lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court (violations of Article 6§1, in the case of Driza).

Status of execution before the meeting: Individual Measures: In the case of Driza the issuing of a final certificate of ownership to the applicant is awaited. The payment of just satisfaction in the case of Vrioni is also awaited. In the case of Gjonbocari the local land commission eventually executed the Supreme Court's judgment, as required by the decision of the European Court. However, considering that the violations were also related to the length of the procedure, information is awaited on measures taken to accelerate the pending proceedings on the applicant's property claims. In the case of Bushati, the European Court reserved its decision under Article 41.

In the other cases, in view of the restitution and compensation awarded and the reimbursement of the 10% tax, no other individual measures seem necessary.

General measures: An action plan was provided on 2/05/2011, currently under assessment.

As regards the general measures required in the case of Gjonbocari to remedy the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy, the supervision will be carried out in the framework of the case of Marini (3738/02).

    Notes

    The authorities put in place a technical working group to draft the action plan. They also participated in a multilateral round table organised in Bucharest in February 2011 by the Department for the execution of Judgments with the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affaires, with the support of the Human Rights Trust Fund, on the theme “Property restitution/compensation: general measures to comply with European Court’s judgments”.

    The work done by said technical group – which has been orally illustrated to the Secretariat in the framework of a cooperation mission in Tirana on 7 April 2011, financed by the Human Rights trust Fund – lead to a consolidated action plan, approved by the Council of Ministers on 29/04/2011, transmitted to the Secretariat on 2/05/2011.

    Links to relevant documents

    CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 - Cases concerning the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions in Albania
    General measures to comply with the European Court’s judgments

    Action plan / action report DH-DD(2011)316

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. welcomed the submission by the Albanian authorities, on 2/05/2011, of an action plan aimed at solving the structural problem concerning failure to enforce final court and administrative decisions relating to the applicants' right to restitution of, or compensation (whether pecuniary or in kind) for property nationalised under the communist regime;

    2. instructed the Secretariat to make a detailed evaluation in view of a more in depth examination at their 1120th meeting (September 2011) (DH);

    3. in this perspective, invited the authorities to submit the additional information still awaited on individual measures concerning the applicants Driza, Gjonbocari and Vrioni and others.

    * * *

    ARMENIA

Application 32283/04

Final on 17/09/2008

MELTEX LTD AND MESROP MOVSESYAN v. Armenia

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Violation of the applicant company's freedom of expression on account of the refusal, by the National Television and Radio Commission (NTRC), on seven occasions in 2002 and 2003, to deliver to the applicant a broadcasting license (violation of Article 10).

The European Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicant company's freedom to impart information and ideas and that this interference had not met the requirement of lawfulness under the Convention. The Court noted in particular that a procedure which did not require a licensing body to justify its decisions did not provide adequate protection against arbitrary interference by a public authority with the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Status of execution before the meeting: A draft final resolution was circulated on 16 May 2011.

    The decision adopted in this case appears under item E – Adoption of Final resolutions

    * * *

    AZERBAIJAN

Application 40984/07

Final on 04/10/2010

FATULLAYEV v. Azerbaijan

Enhanced procedure

2 cases against Azerbaijan concerning freedom of expression

40984/07 Fatullayev, judgment of 22/04/2010, final on 04/10/2010

35877/04 Mahmudov and Agazade, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

Case description:

The Fatullayev case concerns breaches of the applicants' right to freedom of expression due to his being sentenced to imprisonment after publishing, inter alia, of two articles in the newspaper Realny Azerbaijan (violations of Article 10).

The applicant was convicted and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment for defamation and for "defamation by accusing a person of having committed a serious crime", by the Yasamal District Court on 20/04/2007 after the publication of an article in which he discussed the Khojaly massacre of 26/02/1992. The judgment of the Yasamal District Court was upheld on 6/06/2007 by the Court of Appeal and on 21/08/2007 by the Supreme Court.

The applicant was then convicted of threat of terrorism (eight years' imprisonment), incitement to ethnic hostility (three years' imprisonment) and tax evasion (four months' imprisonment) on 30/10/2007 by the Assize Court. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 16/01/2008 and by the Supreme Court on 3/06/2008, after the publication of an article on the possible consequences of Azerbaijan's support for a resolution of the United Nations Security Council concerning Iran.

The domestic court partially merged the second sentence with the sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment imposed in the previous criminal case, and the applicant was eventually sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment.

As concerns the sentencing for defamation and for "defamation by accusing a person of having committed a serious crime", the Court reiterated that although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence will be compatible with journalists' freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, in particular where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired as, for example, in cases of hate speech or incitement to violence. The circumstances of the present case disclose no justification for sentencing the applicant to imprisonment.

As concerns the sentencing for terrorism and incitement to ethnic hostility, the Court found that the domestic courts failed to provide any relevant reasons for the applicant's conviction on charges of threat of terrorism and incitement to ethnic hostility. The Court also considered that the circumstances of the case disclose no justification for imprisoning the applicant and that both the applicant's conviction and the particularly severe sanction imposed were capable of producing a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression in Azerbaijan and dissuading the press from openly discussing matters of public concern.

The case also concerns a violation of the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal because the judge who had previously examined specific allegations against him in the context of a civil action also examined the same allegations in subsequent criminal proceedings. In the light of the special features of this particular case, the Court held that the applicant's fear that the judge might not be impartial could be considered as objectively justified (violation of Article 6§1).

Moreover the case concerns an infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence due to declarations made by the Prosecutor General to the press on 31/05/2007 - i.e. before the applicant's conviction of 30/10/2007 - that the Article published in Realny Azerbaijan contained information which constituted a threat of terrorism (violation of Article 6§2).

Finally, the Court held that the respondent state should secure the applicant's immediate release.

The case of Mahmudov and Agazade concerns a breach of the applicants' right to freedom of expression in that they were convicted and sentenced to five months' imprisonment for defamation and insult by the Yasamal District Court on 20/05/2003, the judgment being upheld on 16/07/2003 by the Court of Appeal and on 2/03/2004 by the Supreme Court (violations of Article 10). The first applicant was the acting chief editor of a newspaper, Müxalifət. The second applicant was a journalist working for the same newspaper.

The Court found that although the interference with the applicants' right to freedom of expression might have been justified, the criminal penalty imposed was disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. By sentencing the applicants to imprisonment, the domestic courts contravened the principle that, in a democratic society, the press must be able to act as a public watchdog.

Status of execution: Since the 1100th meeting (November 2011) the Committee of Ministers has examined in detail the individual measures and those linked to just satisfaction in the Fatullayev case. By letter of 27/05/2011, the authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that a pardon decree by the President of the Republic ordered the release of the applicant.

In the case of Mahmudov and Agazade the applicants were sentenced to five months' imprisonment but were exempted from serving their sentences by the domestic court in application of the Resolution of the Parliament of Azerbaijan of 6 May 2003 on Amnesty in connection with the Anniversary of the Victory over Fascism in World War II. A record of the sentence is not included in their criminal records. Lastly, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

The Committee of Ministers is still awaiting an action plan for the general measures in these two cases (see also the Deputies’ decision adopted in the case of Mahmudov and Agazade at the 1078th meeting (March 2010)).

    Links to relevant documents

    Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)7

    DH-DD(2011)158 (restricted): Replies to the points made in the Memorandum concerning the execution of the Court judgment in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan. Communication from the delegation of Azerbaijan

    DH-DD(2011)55 Action plan / action report - Translations of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 11 November 2010 (documents provided by the Azerbaijani Delegation) concerning the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07)

    DH-DD(2010)560E Communication from a group of NGOs in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07).

    DH-DD(2011)136: Communication from NGOs in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07)

    DH-DD(2011)157: Second communication from 13 NGOs in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07).

    DH-DD(2011)169E: Communication from 32 NGOs in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07).

    DH-DD(2010)598E Communication from the representative of the applicant in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07).

    DH-DD(2011)137: Communication from the applicant's representative in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07).

    DH- DD(2010)604E Communication from the government in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No  40984/07).

    DH-DD(2011)299E - Communication from the government in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07)

    DH-DD(2011)431E : Communication from Azerbaijan in the case of Fatullayev against Azerbaijan (Application No. 40984/07)

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. welcomed the release of Mr Fatullayev following the Decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 26 May 2011 pardoning 90 persons including the applicant;

    2. instructed the Secretariat to review, in consultation with the authorities of Azerbaijan, any outstanding issues related to individual measures, in the case of Fatullayev, including payment of the just satisfaction;

    3. as regards the general measures required to address the violations found by the Court in this group of cases, noted with interest the information provided during the meeting regarding the decriminalisation of defamation and invited the authorities to provide detailed information in this respect including how the requirements of the Convention and the case-law of the Court have been taken into account;

    4. once more invited the Azerbaijani authorities to provide an action plan on all the measures called for by this group of cases.

    * * *

    BELGIUM AND GREECE

Application 30696/09

Final on 21/01/2011

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Violations found against Greece: Degrading treatment suffered by the applicant (an Afghan national who entered the European Union through Greece and was fingerprinted there, then arrived in Belgium and applied for asylum, was then transferred back to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation) due to the conditions under which he was detained at the holding centre next to Athens International Airport in 2009, (overcrowding, lack of bed/mattress, insufficient ventilation, no regular access to toilets or sanitary facilities no outdoor exercise (violation of Article 3).

Situation incompatible with Article 3 on account of the applicant's living conditions due to the authorities', inaction for the situation in which he had found himself: living in the street, without recourse or access to sanitary facilities and without means of providing for his essential needs (violation of Article 3).

Finally, the case concerns shortcomings in the Greek authorities' examination of the applicant's asylum request and of the risk he faced of being returned directly or indirectly to his country of origin without any serious examination of the merits of his asylum application and without having access to an effective remedy (violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3).

Violations found against Belgium: The transfer of the applicant by Belgium to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation exposed him to the risks arising from deficiencies in the asylum procedure in Greece (violation of Article 3).

The applicant's expulsion, knowingly brought about by the Belgian authorities, exposed him to detention and living conditions in Greece that amounted to degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

The applicant did not have at his disposal a domestic remedy whereby he might obtain both the suspension of the measure at issue and a thorough and rigorous examination of the complaints arising under Article 3 (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3).

Status of execution before the meeting: General Measures: Action plans are awaited from both Greece and Belgium (deadline 21/07/2011). As far as Greece is concerned, similar issues regarding conditions of detention were raised in the cases S.D. against Greece, No. 53541/07, of 11/06/2009, Tabesh against Greece, No. 8256/07, of 26/11/2009, A.A. against Greece, No. 12186/08, of 22/07/2010 and Kaja against Greece, No 32927/03, of 27/07/2006, which are examined together with the M.S.S. case.

Furthermore, on 15/03/2011, CPT issued a Public Statement concerning Greece about the treatment and conditions of detention of persons deprived of their liberty and in particular about the detention of irregular migrants.

A letter of 17/03/2011 by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Greek Prime Minister followed, where he urged the Greek authorities to take the necessary steps so as to ensure improvement of irregular migrants' conditions of detention in light of CPT's recommendations.

Urgent individual measures: The European Court considered that it was incumbent on Greece to proceed without delay with an examination of the merits of the applicant's asylum request that meets the requirements of the Convention and, pending the outcome of that examination, to refrain from deporting the applicant (§402 of the judgment).

On 07/02/2011, the Greek authorities indicated that the President of the Legal Council of the State (Government Agent) contacted the relevant departments (departments in charge of immigration and of asylum) to inform them of the judgment and request implementation of the urgent individual measures. These departments have been asked to locate the applicant, to verify his current situation and in particular his conditions of stay. Similarly, they have been asked to examine the developments regarding his asylum request.

By letter dated 14/04/2011, the Greek authorities indicated that, despite the efforts made by the police authorities to locate the applicant (information given to the Government Agent on 08/04/2011), he could not be found and therefore they were prevented from proceeding with his asylum request. In addition, the relevant health services confirmed to the Government Agent the availability accommodation if the applicant presented himself. However, it is very likely that at present the applicant is no longer in Greece: while seeking the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, the applicant's representative contacted the authorities on 23/02/2011 and produced a special power of attorney, with the applicant's signature validated by the competent Belgian authorities. Furthermore, the Greek authorities indicated that according to information yet to be officially confirmed, the applicant has introduced an asylum request before the Belgian authorities, which is said to be currently under examination.

On 09/05/2011, the Greek authorities provided a copy of a letter addressed to the applicant’s representative whereby they confirmed the payment of just satisfaction to the bank account indicated by him. They also informed the applicant’s representative of their willingness to examine the applicant’s asylum request as a matter of priority in accordance with the Court’s judgment. Noting, however, that it appeared that the applicant was no longer in Greek territory, since the search carried out by the police produced no result, the authorities asked the applicant’s representative whether his client wished to have his file examined in Greece. In the affirmative, he was asked to indicate his address, in order to be notified to appear before the competent authorities. In addition, the Greek authorities informed him of the availability of accommodation.

By e-mail of 19/05/2011, the Belgian authorities confirmed that the applicant's asylum request had been recorded on 24/02/2011. On 21/03/2011 the request was referred to the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons in charge of the examination of asylum requests. The examination of the request is currently under way.

    Links to relevant documents:

    DH-DD(2011)305F Information provided by the Greek authorities

    DH-DD(2011)348F Information on individual measures (Greece)

    Public statement concerning Greece made under Article 10, paragraph 2, of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CPT/Inf (2011)10

    15 March 2011

    Letter by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Prime Minister of Greece dated 17/03/2011 (<http://www.coe.int/t/secretarygeneral/sg/speeches/2011/20110318.pdf>)

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note of the steps taken by the Greek authorities to locate the applicant on Greek territory and to inform him, through his representative, that they are willing to examine his asylum request as a priority and that accommodation is at his disposal;

    2. noted however that the Belgian authorities have confirmed that the applicant has lodged an asylum request in Belgium which was transmitted to the General Commissioner for Refugees and Stateless Persons on 21 March 2011 and that this request is currently under examination;

    3. noted with interest the information provided during the meeting by the Belgian and the Greek authorities on general measures already taken and envisaged;

    4. in particular in the light of the important questions of general character raised by the present judgment, urged the Belgian and Greek authorities to provide, by 21 July 2011 at the latest, their respective action plans outlining the individual and general measures taken and envisaged with a view to the judgment’s execution.

    * * *

    BOSNIA and HERZEGOVINA

Application 27996/06

Final on 22/12/2009

SEJDIC and FINCI v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Violation of the right to free elections and discrimination against the applicants, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Roma and Jewish origin, who were ineligible to stand for election to the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the second chamber of Parliament) due to the lack of affiliation with a constituent people (Bosniacs, Croats or Serbs) (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1). The case also concerns general discrimination against the applicants due to their ineligibility to stand for election to the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the collective Head of State) due to their lack of affiliation with a constituent people (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12).

Status of execution before the meeting: The violations found by the European Court require the amendment of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is an annexe to the Dayton Peace Agreement) as well as certain electoral legislation. In February and March 2010 the Central Electoral Commission and the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted two action plans, which set specific deadlines and identified the authorities responsible for taking the necessary measures. A task force was appointed to carry out this work. However, the task force has not managed to reach an agreement on the constitutional and legislative amendments because divergent positions were expressed by different political stakeholders.

Consequently, the action plans have not been implemented and Bosnia and Herzegovina held elections in October 2010 based on the existing discriminatory legislation.

The authorities indicated that work on the constitutional reform was disrupted before the elections took place. It was expected that the task force would resume its work as soon as the new government is formed. At the 1108th meeting (March 2011) the Committee noted with concern that no political consensus had been reached on the content of the constitutional and legislative amendments necessary to execute the present judgment despite the Committee's repeated calls since its 1078th meeting (March 2010). The Committee also invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to inform it of developments regarding the procedural steps taken to implement this judgment and the different proposals made by stakeholders in this respect, including the proposals on which a consensus had been reached and on which no consensus had yet been reached.

    Links to relevant documents

    For detailed information, see CM/Inf/DH(2011)6

    For action plan, see DH-DD(2010)108E

    Updated Action Plan DH-DD(2011)403

    For a submission made under Rule 9.2, see DH-DD(2010)307E

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note of the information provided by the authorities of the respondent state in response to the questions raised by the Committee of Ministers at its 1108th meeting (March 2011) (DH);

    2. noted with concern that no consensus has been reached among different political stakeholders to bring the country’s Constitution and its electoral legislation in line with this judgment and the Convention;

    3. regretted that no progress has been made in the execution of this judgment following the elections held in October 2010;

    4. reiterated their call on the authorities and political leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina to take the necessary measures rapidly to bring the country’s Constitution and its electoral legislation in line with the present judgment;

    5. instructed the Secretariat, should the respondent state fail to make any concrete progress in the execution of this judgment, to prepare a draft interim resolution conveying the Committee of Ministers’ concerns for consideration at the 1128th meeting (November-December 2011) (DH).

    * * *

    BULGARIA

Application 43577/98

Final on 06/07/2005

NACHOVA AND HRISTOVA GROUP v. Bulgaria

Enhanced procedure

43577/98+ Nachova and others, judgment of 06/07/2005 - Grand Chamber*

69180/01 Karandja, judgment of 07/10/2010, final on 07/01/2011

45500/99 Tzekov, judgment of 23/02/2006, final on 23/05/2006*

63106/00 Petrov Vasil Sashov, judgment of 10/06/2010, final on 10/09/2010*

2747/02 Vachkovi, judgment of 08/07/2010, final on 08/10/2010

272/05+ Vlaevi, judgment of 02/09/2010, final on 02/12/2010

Case description: The case of Nachova concerns the killing, in 1996, of two Roma conscripts due to the unjustified use of fire-arms during their arrest (violation of Article 2). The European Court considered that the legal framework as well as the practice governing the use of fire-arms by the military police fell well short of the level of protection of the right to life that is required by the Convention. The case concerns also the lack of effective investigation into the killing of the two men (violation of Article 2), as well as the failure by the authorities to comply with their obligation to inquire whether or not possible racist motives may have played a role in the events (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2).

The other cases concern death, life-threatening injury or ill-treatment during arrests between 1996 and 1999 due to the unjustified and/or disproportionate use of fire-arms by police officers and/or the absence of adequate planning and control of police operations during which the use of fire-arms has lead to death (violations of Articles 2 and 3). The Court found in this respect that the legal and administrative framework governing the use of fire-arms by the police was insufficient to protect those concerned against unjustified encroachments on their right to life or their physical integrity. These cases concern also the lack of effective investigation into these incidents (violations of Articles 2 and 3). The case of Vachkovi concerns more particularly the omission to collect statements from the officers of the Anti-Terrorism Squad. The case of Vasil Sashov Petrov concerns also the failure of the civil courts to examine a tort claim in line with the standards developed in the Court's case-law on Article 2 (violation of Articles 2 and 13).

Status of execution before the meeting: An action report was submitted by the authorities on 02/03/2011. The authorities consider that the examination of this group of cases may be closed. The measures taken by the authorities, as well as the assessment of the Secretariat on the subject are presented in the information document CM/InfDH(2011)24rev).

    Links to relevant documents:

    - DH-DD(2011)256 - Action plan / action report (Velikova and Nachova)

    - CM/Inf/DH(2011)24rev

    - DH-DD(2011)298 - Communication from an NGO and reply of the government in the cases of Velikova against Bulgaria (Application No. 41488/98) and Nachova and others against Bulgaria (Application No. 43577/98)

    Notes:

    During bilateral consultations held in Sofia on 10 May 2011, the Bulgarian authorities informed the Secretariat that in April 2011 the Parliament adopted the draft law amending the Criminal Code to introduce aggravated qualifications for murder and bodily harm committed with racist or xenophobic motives and that this amendment entered into force in May 2011.

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note of the measures taken by the Bulgarian authorities for the execution of these judgments presented in the information document CM/Inf/DH(2011)24rev and in the action report submitted by the authorities on 2 March 2011;

    2. noted with satisfaction the adoption by the Bulgarian Parliament of an amendment to the Criminal Code introducing aggravated qualifications for murder and bodily harm committed with racist or xenophobic motives;

    3. noted that this amendment appears to be a sufficient measure with regard to the duty to investigate whether or not possible racist motives played a role in an excessive use of force during arrest, insofar as it would oblige the investigation authorities to examine this issue in order to establish the correct qualification of the facts;

    4. noted that a number of outstanding issues remain, in particular concerning the compliance of the legislative and administrative framework governing the use of firearms by the police and the military police with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention;

    5. invited the Bulgarian authorities to adopt, as soon as possible, the necessary legislative amendments in this respect (see the information document CM/Inf/DH(2011)24rev, §§17-19 and 25);

    6. invited the Bulgarian authorities to provide additional information on the training of the members of the police and the military police on the requirements of the Convention concerning the application of the provisions governing the use of firearms;

    7. invited the Bulgarian authorities to provide information concerning the individual measures in the cases of Vlaevi, Vachkovi, Karandja and Vasil Sashov Petrov;

    8. decided to declassify the information document CM/Inf/DH(2011)24rev.

    * * *

Application 31465/08

Final on 11/05/2010

RAZA v. Bulgaria

Enhanced procedure

Case description: In this case the Court found that the applicant had not enjoyed adequate safeguards against arbitrariness in proceedings concerning his expulsion which began in 2005. For this reason, the Court said that if the expulsion order is put into effect, this would violate the applicant's right to respect for his family life (possible violation of Article 8). The Court also found that the judicial proceedings concerning the review of the expulsion order were not an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (violation of Article 13). Finally, this case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention pending deportation (violation of Article 5§1) and the lack of speedy review by a court of the lawfulness of this detention (violation of Article 5§4).

Status of execution before the meeting: An action report was submitted by the authorities on 02/03/2011 concerning the execution of this judgment.

Individual measures: the applicant was released in 2008. Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant requested the annulment by the National Security Agency of the order of expulsion concerned by this judgment. This request was rejected. The applicant also requested the reopening of the judicial proceedings having led to the confirmation of the expulsion order in 2008. These proceedings have been reopened and the Supreme Administrative Court is currently examining anew the expulsion order. The proceedings do not have suspensive effect on the execution of the order for the applicant's expulsion. The authorities have indicated in their action report of 02/03/2011 that the applicant is awaiting expulsion to Pakistan.

By letter of 25/05/11, the authorities clarified this information. They indicated that the competent domestic authorities – the Directorate of Migration in the Ministry of Interior – have been informed of the judgment of the European Court and of the Court’s finding according to which if the order for the expulsion of the applicant is put into effect, there would be a violation of his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. By letter of 20/05/2011, the Directorate of Migration indicated that the execution of the expulsion order against the applicant had been suspended in 2008 and he had been placed under the obligation to report daily to the police station of his place of residence. In the same letter, the Directorate of Migration also specified that all the necessary measures for the execution of the European Court’s judgment have been taken concerning the non-enforcement of the expulsion order against the applicant for the whole duration of the judicial review proceedings which were reopened after the judgment of the European Court (see DH-DD(2011)402).

General measures: the measures which remain to be taken to avoid violations similar to those found by the Court in the present case are examined within the framework of the group of cases Al-Nashif and others against Bulgaria.

    Link to relevant documents:

    Action plan / Action report: DH-DD(2011)255

    Letter from the authorities of 25/05/2011: DH-DD(2011)402

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that in this case, the European Court considered that if the order for the expulsion of the applicant were put into effect, there would be a violation of his right to respect for his family life, because this expulsion order has not been subject to a review which complies with the requirements of the Convention;

    2. noted with satisfaction the concrete measures taken by the Bulgarian authorities to ensure that the applicant will not be expelled without having the order of expulsion against him reviewed in new judicial proceedings;

    3. invited the Bulgarian authorities to take all the necessary measures to ensure that in the new proceedings to review the expulsion order the applicant will be offered all the safeguards required by the Court’s judgment; invited them to keep the Committee informed of the progress of the new review proceedings concerning the expulsion order criticised by the Court’s judgment;

    4. recalled that the general measures required for the execution of this judgment are being examined in the group of cases Al-Nashif and others.

    * * *

Application 41488/98

Final on 04/10/2000

VELIKOVA GROUP v. Bulgaria

Enhanced procedure

41488/98 Velikova, judgment of 18/05/00, final on 04/10/00

34805/02 Angelov Angel Vaskov, judgment of 25/03/2010, final on 25/06/2010

38361/97 Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

69138/01 Boyko Ivanov, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008, rectified on 08/09/2008

31365/02 Dimitrov Georgi, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

61275/00 Georgiev Vladimir, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

53121/99 Iliev Stefan, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

55061/00 Kazakova, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006

50222/99 Krastanov, judgment of 30/09/2004, final on 30/12/2004

7888/03 Nikolova and Velichkova, judgment of 20/12/2007, final on 20/03/2008

46317/99 Ognyanova and Choban, judgment of 23/02/2006, final on 23/05/2006

43233/98 Osman, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006

57883/00 Petrov Vasil, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

47905/99 Rashid, judgment of 18/01/2006, final on 18/04/2006

14383/03 Sashov and others, judgment of 07/01/2010, final on 07/04/2010

17322/04 Shishkovi, judgment of 25/03/2010, final on 25/06/2010*

42027/98 Toteva, judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 19/08/2004

48130/99 Vasilev Ivan, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

Case description: These cases concern death and/or ill-treatment which had occurred under the responsibility of law enforcement agents, failure to provide medical care in police custody in due time, excessive use of force during arrests, as well as the lack of an effective investigation into the alleged abuses (violations of Articles 2 and/or 3 and 13).

The case of Shishkovi also concerns the lack of domestic remedy allowing to claim damages due to the grounds on which the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been terminated (violation of Articles 3 and 13).

Some of the cases also concern irregularities related to detention (violation of Articles 5§1 and 5§3), the unlawful destruction of property by the police (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and the excessive length of proceedings engaged against the state to obtain compensation for the alleged ill-treatment (violation of Article 6§1).

The death or ill-treatment in all these cases took place during the period between 1993 and 2001.

Status of execution before the meeting: An action report was submitted by the authorities on 02/03/2011. The authorities consider that the examination of this group of cases may be closed. The measures taken by the authorities, as well as the assessment of the Secretariat on the subject are presented in the information document CM/InfDH(2011)23.

    Notes: In 2007, the Committee of Ministers adopted an Interim resolution in this group of cases (CM/ResDH(2007)107). The main outstanding questions identified in this interim resolution concern: the improvement of the training of the members of the police as regards the requirements of the Convention; the effective implementation of procedural safeguards during police custody to prevent ill-treatment by the police; the reinforcement of the independence and the impartiality of the investigations concerning allegations of ill-treatment by the police. The Committee likewise requested the Bulgarian authorities to keep it informed of the practical impact of the measures taken. Information has also been requested on the individual measures in some cases. Since the adoption of the interim resolution, the authorities have submitted additional information, and on 2 March 2011 they also submitted an action report. The analysis of the Secretariat of the measures taken since the interim resolution and of the outstanding questions is presented in the information document CM/Inf/DH(2011)23.

    On 20 May 2011, the Secretariat received a letter from the Bulgarian authorities indicating that they took note of the outstanding questions identified in this information document and that they were gathering together the additional information required. The authorities suggested that the discussion of the outstanding questions is postponed to one of the forthcoming Human Rights meetings of the Committee to allow for a substantive debate on these questions.

    Links to the relevant documents

    DH-DD(2011)256 - Action plan / action report (Velikova and Nachova)

    CM/Inf/DH(2011)23

    DH-DD(2011)298 - Communication from an NGO and reply of the government in the cases of Velikova against Bulgaria (Application No. 41488/98) and Nachova and others against Bulgaria (Application No. 43577/98)

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note with interest of the measures adopted by the Bulgarian authorities for the execution of these judgments following the adoption of Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)107, summarised in the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)23 and in the action report submitted by the authorities on 2 March 2011;

    2. noted that further clarification and information are needed in respect of certain outstanding questions identified in the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)23 ;

    3. in this context, invited the authorities to submit additional information on the practical training of the members of the police on the requirements of the Convention concerning the application of the provisions governing the use of force and on the monitoring on the domestic level of incidents of ill-treatment;

    4. invited the authorities also to provide additional information on the improvement of certain procedural safeguards during police custody and drew their attention to the recommendations of the CPT in this respect;

    5. noted that precise information is also needed concerning the measures taken or envisaged to ensure the objectiveness, the thoroughness and the effectiveness of investigations relating to ill-treatment by the police, as well as the impartiality and the independence of these investigations;

    6. recalled their invitation to the Bulgarian authorities to present their assessment of the practical impact of the measures taken and to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the additional measures taken or envisaged for the execution of these judgments;

    7. invited the authorities to submit information or clarification concerning the individual measures in certain cases identified in the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)23;

    8. decided to declassify the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)23.

    * * *

    CYPRUS and RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Application 25965/04

Final on 10/05/2010

RANTSEV v. Cyprus and the Russian Federation

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Violations found in respect of Cyprus

Failure by the Cypriot authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of the death of the applicant's daughter, who travelled from Russia to Cyprus on an "artiste" visa and died there in ambiguous circumstances (violation of the procedural limb of Article 2); violation of the Cypriot authorities' positive obligations arising under Article 4 on account, first, of their failure to put in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework to combat trafficking as a result of the existing regime of artiste visas and secondly of the failure of the police to take operational measures to protect the applicant's daughter from trafficking, despite circumstances which had given rise to a credible suspicion that she might have been a victim of trafficking (violation of Article 4); unlawful detention of the applicant's daughter at the police station with no basis in domestic law and the authorities' acquiescence in her subsequent arbitrary and unlawful confinement in a private apartment (violation of Article 5§1).

Violation found in respect of the Russian Federation

A failure by the Russian authorities to conduct an effective investigation as to how and where the applicant's daughter had been recruited and, in particular, to take steps to identify those involved in her recruitment or the methods of recruitment used (violation of Article 4).

Status of execution before the meeting: Individual measures: Prior to the European Court's judgment, the Cypriot Council of Ministers appointed an independent committee headed by the President of the Independent Authority for the investigation of allegations and complaints against the police to investigate Ms Rantseva's death, including the question of whether there was any link between her death and allegations of trafficking. In the meantime the Russian authorities opened a criminal investigation into Ms Rantseva's death and in the framework of this criminal case is being carried the investigation into the circumstances of her recruitment in Russia for the purpose of human trafficking.

On 02/08/2010, 04/04/2011 and 15/04/2011 the applicant presented communications (in Russian) with regard to the individual measures required by the judgment. In these communications, he mainly complains that both Cypriot and Russian authorities are still unwilling to enforce the judgment of the European Court, in particular that:

    - the applicant has not been invited to participate in the investigative activities;

    - he is not provided with documents and information he asks for;

    - both governments are delaying the proceedings;

    - the applicant's requests to open a separate investigation into human trafficking were rejected by the Russian authorities;

    - the Cypriot and Russian investigating groups are not co-operating fully.

In a letter of 20/05/2011 the applicant reiterated his grievances and indicated that he had received an invitation to participate in certain investigative activities in Cyprus. He underlined that he would like to participate in the investigation in general, but as to this particular invitation, he doubted that it could be useful for the investigation and noted that his poor health would not permit him to go to Cyprus in any event.

The Cypriot authorities have indicated that they had invited the applicant to Cyprus in order to make a statement for the investigation, and that one other witness from Russia will also be invited in due course. They also noted that it had been decided not to send investigators to Russia at this stage (see DH-DD(2011)336E). The Cypriot authorities also provided information in response to the issues raised in the applicant's letters of 04/04/2011 and 15/04/2011, including the affirmation that the applicant is being duly informed about the course of the investigation (see DH-DD(2011)357E). Lastly the Cypriot authorities replied to the Russian authorities’ request for mutual legal assistance that they will provide all the required information but only once the Cypriot investigators complete their investigation.

The Russian authorities have indicated that their investigation was still ongoing and that the applicant is being duly informed about its progress. However, they noted that this investigation could not be pursued effectively in the light of the Cypriot authorities' answer, mentioned above, to their request for legal assistance on the criminal case, including the questioning of certain witnesses (see DH-DD(2011)335E).

The Committee awaits information on the progress of the domestic investigations, including positive signs that the applicant has been able to participate sufficiently in the both investigations, and on the progress on co-operation between the Cypriot and Russian authorities so as to guarantee an effective investigation.

General measures: Both states have submitted information in relation to the general measures (see relevant links below).

    Links to the relevant documents

    DH-DD(2010)376E (Action Plan Cyprus) ;

    DH-DD(2010)411E (Information provided by the Russian Federation)

    DH-DD(2010)372E - Communication from the applicant's lawyer

    DH-DD(2011)335 - Communication from the Russian Federation

    DH-DD(2011)336 - Communication from Cyprus

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that an effective investigation must, inter alia, be prompt and carried out with reasonable expedition and involve the next-of-kin to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests;

    2. noted the information provided by the Cypriot authorities on the progress of their domestic investigation, in particular that it is expected to be concluded within a few months and a report presented to the Attorney General of Cyprus;

    3. noted the information provided by the Russian authorities on the progress of their domestic investigation, in particular the need to receive rapidly the requested legal assistance from the Cypriot investigators to facilitate a prompt and fully effective investigation into the circumstances of Ms Rantseva’s death and the allegations of human trafficking;

    4. encouraged the Cypriot authorities’ efforts to provide such legal assistance to the Russian investigators as soon as possible, independently of the completion of the investigation, and stressed again the critical importance of close co-operation between the Cypriot and Russian authorities;

    5. invited both the Cypriot and Russian authorities to keep the Committee updated on the progress of both investigations.

    * * *

    CZECH REPUBLIC

Application 57325/00

Final on 13/11/2007

D.H. AND OTHERS v. Czech Republic

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Discrimination in the enjoyment of the applicants' right to education due to their assignment to special schools between 1996 and 1999 on account of their Roma origin (Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1).

Status of execution before the meeting:

Individual measures: education in the Czech Republic is compulsory for all children from six to fifteen. The applicants are all older than fifteen and therefore are no longer in the compulsory schooling system. No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: In April 2009 the Czech authorities submitted a wide-ranging action plan, updated in 2009 and early 2010. The measures directly relevant to the judgment are largely set out in the National Action Plan on Inclusive Education (the "NAPIV"). The goal of the NAPIV is to end the persisting practice of segregating of Roma pupils; its "Preparatory Phase" (2010-2013) is being implemented. An analysis by the Secretariat of the measures set out in the Action plan and in particular in the NAPIV is presented in document CM/Inf/DH(2010)47.

    Notes: in his statement at the 1100th meeting of the Deputies (November-December 2010), the Representative of the Czech Republic commented that “…the NAPIV adopted by the government in March 2010, is being implemented, albeit with a short delay caused by the parliamentary elections last May. The past year saw the commencement of a series of steps taken in support of the inclusive education model”.

    In the light of this, at the December meeting, the Committee noted with satisfaction that the Czech authorities confirmed that the National Action Plan on Inclusive Education (the "NAPIV") setting out the key measures proposed by the Czech authorities to execute the judgment is now definitively adopted and its implementation has begun. The Committee also encouraged the Czech authorities to follow the implementation of the NAPIV without delay, particularly concerning measures to address the situation of pupils improperly placed in practical schools (zakladni skoly prakticke) to ensure that they are able to transfer to the mainstream education system.

    However, no further information has been presented by the Czech authorities. A number of national and other organisations including the Czech School Inspectorate, the Czech Ombudsman, the European Commissioner for Human Rights and NGOs2 have underlined that despite the action plan and adoption of the NAPIV there appears to be little change on the ground in the Czech Republic since the judgment was delivered in 2007. Some NGOs have indicated that the situation has in fact worsened, with the downgrading of the Inclusive Education Department inside the Ministry of Education and the dismantling of an expert panel that was to assist with implementing the NAPIV (see DH-DD(2011)308).

    No information has been provided by the Czech authorities as to the urgent issue identified by the Committee of the situation of pupils improperly placed in practical schools. NGO submissions indicate that the possibilities for those children to transfer to mainstream education remain very limited (see DH-DD(2011)308).

    Links to the relevant documents

    CM/Inf/DH(2010)47

    DH-DD(2011)165E Communication from a NGO

    DH-DD(2010)586 Communication from NGOs

    DH-DD(2011)308 Communication from a NGO

    DH-DD(2011)439 Communication from the Czech Republic in the case of D.H. and others

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted the confirmation of the Czech authorities that the action plan (particularly the NAPIV) is on going and is currently in a preparatory phase, with its implementation phase due to begin in 2013;

    2. noted also the information provided during the meeting on the entry into force in September 2011 of two Ministerial Decrees, that remains to be assessed (see DH-DD(2011)439);

    3. noting with concern that considerable progress remains to be achieved on the ground, stressed the importance of the Czech authorities' intensifying and if possible, speeding up the implementation of their action plan;

    4. called upon the Czech authorities to provide precise information on the current state of implementation of the Action plan, on the timetable of future steps and on concrete results achieved particularly in the perspective of the next school year and the outstanding questions identified in memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)47.

    * * *

    FRANCE

Application 25672/07

Final on 23/12/2010

BOUSARRA v. France

Enhanced procedure

Transfer proposed

Case description: Disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life of the applicant, a Moroccan national, due to a final expulsion order issued against him (violation of Article 8).

Status of execution before the meeting: The French authorities indicated in a letter dated 11/05/2011 that an order abrogating the expulsion order against the applicant had been signed on 9/05/2011. They also specified by e-mail on 17/05/2011 that this order provides that “the French Consulate with territorial competence in Morocco has been instructed to notify the applicant of the decision and to provide him with a copy”. The French authorities further indicated that the French Embassy in Morocco had also been asked to notify the decision to the applicant and that any possible request for a visa on his part would be examined by the competent authorities. An action plan / report is awaited.

    Notes: The applicant, Mr. Bousarra, a Moroccan national, arrived in France with his parents at the age of three weeks. The decision to expel him to Morocco was taken in 2001 when he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, of which one year suspended, for a drugs-related offence, extortion, kidnapping and possession of an illegal weapon. He is currently residing in Taza (Morocco).

    The European Court noted that it could not be reasonably argued that because of the offences committed, the applicant represented an extremely serious threat to public order justifying expulsion from French territory (§53). The European Court found a violation of Article 8 considering that the final expulsion order represented a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his family life.

    The Court further noted that if the current legislation introduced by Law No. 2003-1119 adopted in 2003 had been in force at the time of the facts, the applicant could have availed himself of it as a protected person under Articles L. 521-3 of the CESEDA and 131-30-2 of the Penal Code (§52). In January 2006 the applicant submitted an application for a visa at the Consulate General of France in Morocco. On 30/05/2007, the deputy consul refused the visa application on the basis of the decision of the Minister of Interior, dated of 12/07/2007, considering that the expulsion from the territory still remained an "imperative necessity for public order" under the current Article L. 521-2 of CESEDA (§18).

    At its 1108th meeting (March 2011) the Committee underlined how urgent it was to remedy the applicant’s situation, as he was complaining in particular about the fact that he could not visit his aged father, a French national residing in France. It invited the French authorities to lift the ban on entering French territory imposed on the applicant and in this context to consider any application he might make to return.

    In the light of the individual measures taken by the authorities, the applicant may now submit a fresh request for a visa. Consequently, the Deputies might wish to consider that the urgent nature of the individual measure has been redressed and to continue their supervision of the execution of this case under the standard procedure. In the light of the foregoing, they might invite the French authorities to provide them with an action report.

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerned a disproportionate breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life following his expulsion following criminal offences committed in France;

    2. recalled that the European Court had underlined that it could not reasonably be contended, in the light of the offences committed, that the applicant constituted an extremely serious threat to public order justifying his definitive removal from the territory of France;

    3. recalled that urgent individual measures were needed to redress the situation of the applicant, who complained in particular that he could not visit his father, a French national living in France who is ill and over eighty years old;

    4. noted with satisfaction that an order to abrogate the expulsion order was signed on 9 May 2011, which provides that “the French Consulate with territorial competence in Morocco has been instructed to notify the applicant of the decision and to provide him with a copy”;

    5. recalled their invitation to the French authorities to examine any request for return that the applicant might submit and expressed the wish in this connection to have confirmation of the date upon which the applicant was effectively informed that the expulsion order had been abrogated;

    6. decided, in the light of the foregoing, to pursue their supervision of the execution of this judgment under the standard supervisory procedure;

    7. invited the authorities to provide an action plan / report by 23 June 2011.

    * * *

    GEORGIA

Application 7975/06

Final on 02/05/2010

KLAUS AND YURI KILADZE v. Georgia

Enhanced procedure

Transfer proposed

Case description: Violation of the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) owing to the state's complete failure to act to ensure adoption of the implementing texts of the law of 11/12/1997 on Status as a Victim of Political Repression, so that the applicants were never able to receive the compensation to which they were entitled.

The judgment reveals an underlying structural problem. The Court underlined the urgency of legislative, administrative and budgetary measures so that those concerned by Article 9 of the law of 11/12/1997 may effectively benefit from the right guaranteed in this provision.

The Court also held that if these measures were still not taken within six months following the date when the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Convention (i.e. on 2/11/2010), the respondent state would be required to pay each of the applicants 4 000 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

Status of execution before the meeting: An action plan was submitted by the Georgian authorities on 14/04/2011 (see DH-DD(2011)300). At this date, two draft laws were being discussed before Parliament: the first amending the law of 11/12/1997 on the Status as a Victim of Political Repression, in order to provide for compensation for victims; the second one amending the Code of Administrative Proceedings in order to organise the practical modalities of granting such compensation. The adoption of these two laws was foreseen for late April and their implementation by the Tbilisi court expected to start in May 2011. The Georgian authorities further informed the Committee of Ministers that the amendment to the law of 11/12/1997 was adopted on 19/04/2011 (see DH-DD(2011)303).

As concerns individual measures, the just satisfaction granted by the Court, which has been paid with default interest on 28/02/2011, covers all damages suffered by the applicants and therefore no further measures are necessary.

    Links to the relevant documents

    Action Plans / Action Reports DH-DD(2011)300; DH-DD(2011)303F

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note, with satisfaction, of the action plan submitted by the Georgian authorities according to which in April two draft laws were being discussed before Parliament with implementation by the Tbilisi court expected to begin in May 2011: the first amending the law of 11/12/1997 on the Status as a Victim of Political Repression, in order to provide for compensation for victims; the second one amending the Code of Administrative Proceedings in order to organise the practical modalities of granting such compensation;

    2. also took note with satisfaction of the subsequent information (adoption on 19/04/2011 of the amendment to the law of 11/12/1997 and publication in the Official Journal of 18 May 2011) showing that the action plan is being implemented within the foreseen timeframe;

    3. decided therefore to transfer this case for examination under the standard supervision procedure.

    * * *

    GERMANY

Application 46344/06

Final on 02/12/2010

RUMPF GROUP v. Germany

(list of cases)

Enhanced procedure

46344/06 RUMPF, judgment of 02/092010, final on 02/12/2010

Case description: Violations of the right to a fair trial due to excessive length of proceedings and of the right to an effective remedy in this respect (Violations of Articles 6§1 and 13). The Court applied the pilot-judgment procedure in the case of Rumpf and set specific deadlines for the adoption of an effective remedy against excessive length of proceedings. It is recalled that the Court has already highlighted the absence of an effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings in Germany in the case of Sürmeli (see Grand Chamber judgment of 08/06/2006).

In the Rumpf judgment, the Court requested the respondent state to introduce without delay, and within a maximum of one year after the judgment became final (i.e. by 2 December 2011), a remedy or a combination of remedies in the national legal system to bring it into line with the Convention's requirements. At the same time, the Court decided to continue the examination of similar cases pending before it.

Status of execution before the meeting: Several action plans / reports have been received in relation to the group of cases of Sürmeli, the latest update being registered on 16/11/2010, as well as an action plan for the Rumpf case on 25/02/2011. Extensive statistics on length of proceedings were provided, indicating that the length of main proceedings had been continuously shortened in recent years and that the average length of proceedings may be considered reasonable.

Legislative work is also under way: the Ministry of Justice prepared a new draft law on 15/03/2010 (Act on legal protection in the event of excessive length of judicial proceedings and preliminary proceedings under criminal statutes) which was forwarded to all relevant institutions in April 2010, with comments to be provided by June 2010. The government then adopted the draft law on 8/08/2010. The Bundesrat, by means of which the Länder take part in the legislative process, made observations on 15/10/2010, proposing various amendments. On 5 May 2011 the German authorities reported that the legal committee of the German Parliament held an expert hearing on 23 March 2011 and discussed technical issues regarding the envisaged remedy. The expert presentation can be found in German at (link)

The committee is continuing deliberations on this issue. The Bundestag is expected to finish the legislative process before the end of May. The draft law will then require the consent of the Bundesrat before it can go to the Federal President for signature and subsequent promulgation in the Federal Law Gazette. The German government is certain that this procedure can be concluded within the time-limit set by the European Court.

According to the draft law (in its version received on 23/06/2010), a complaint of delay in proceedings must first be lodged in the original proceedings, in which the court may react by taking remedial action by accelerating the proceedings, otherwise an action for damages may be brought while the proceedings are still pending. A comparable solution is foreseen for the Federal Constitutional Court and specific provisions are intended for criminal proceedings. These regulations would also be applicable to applications pending before the European Court.

    Links to relevant documents

    DH-DD(2011)88: Action plan / action report - Communication from Germany concerning the Sürmeli group of cases against Germany (Application No. 75529/01)

    DH-DD(2011)140: Action plan / action report - Communication from Germany concerning the case of Rumpf against Germany (Application No. 46344/06)

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. observed that the legislative process to provide an effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings was still ongoing before the German Parliament;

    2. invited the German authorities to keep them regularly informed on the progress of adoption of an effective remedy and to bring the legislative process to an end before the expiry of the deadline set by the European Court (i.e. 2 December 2011).

    * * *

    GREECE

Applications 50973/08, 70626/01

Final on 21/03/2011,11/06/2004

VASSILIOS ATHANASIOU AND OTHERS v. Greece

MANIOS GROUP v. Greece

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Violations of the right to a fair trial due to excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts and the Council of State and of the right to an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 6§1 and 13). The Court applied (for the first time with regard to Greece) the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Vassilios Athanasiou and others, identifying a structural problem, confirmed by the fact that more than 200 cases- 100 of which before the administrative courts alone - are currently pending before the Court. The Court set specific deadlines for the introduction of an effective remedy or a combination of effective remedies at national level, in compliance with the criteria set by the Court's case-law. At the same time, the Court decided to continue the examination of similar cases pending before it. It is recalled that the Court had already highlighted that the excessive length of administrative proceedings was a chronic problem in Greece in many cases, following that of Manios (see judgment of 11/03/2004).

Status of execution before the meeting: In its Interim Resolution (CM/ResDH(2007)74), the Committee of Ministers took note of the large number of judgments of the Court finding Greece in violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, as well as of Article 13 of the Convention, on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings before administrative courts, in particular before the Council of State. It recalled that constitutional, legislative and other reforms had been adopted so far by the authorities in order to remedy the problems; it considered, however, that further general measures were required to comply with the Court's judgments. Therefore, it urged the Greek authorities to expedite the adoption of the new draft legislation aimed at the acceleration of proceedings before all administrative courts, to envisage additional measures and to make all possible efforts to accelerate the adoption of the new draft legislation for a remedy, providing compensation in cases of excessive length of proceedings and ensuring that this would be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Convention and the case-law of the Court.

By letter dated 25/06/2008, the authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that Law No. 3659/2008 (entitled "improvement and acceleration of administrative court proceedings and other provisions") which included measures concerning the efficient arrangement of the progress of the proceedings before administrative courts, in order to shorten the time for reviewing cases was adopted (§ 47 of the judgment). Nevertheless, the bill entitled "Compensation of applicants due to the excessive length of judicial proceedings" has not to date been enacted. The Court, while recognising certain recent developments in the Greek legal order, held that Greece was to introduce, without delay, an effective remedy or a combination of effective remedies at national level, within one year from the date on which its judgment would become final (i.e. by 21/03/2012).

Action plan awaited.

Following the pilot judgment in the case of Vassilios Athanasiou, by letter dated 05/05/2011 (DH-DD(2011)349) the authorities informed the Committee of Ministers of measures taken regarding the acceleration of procedures before the administrative courts: Law No. 3900/2010, entitled “Rationalisation and acceleration of proceedings before administrative courts and other provisions’’ entered into force on 01/01/2011. In accordance with the said law, new procedures to limit the number of hearings before administrative courts were introduced (e.g. identification of categories of cases which can be directly examined by the Council of State because of their importance). Finally, the authorities indicated that the Ministry of Justice, taking into consideration the Athanasiou judgment, is examining the measures to be adopted to introduce a national mechanism that will guarantee an effective remedy in cases of excessive length of domestic proceedings, in line with the principles laid down by the European Convention.

    Links to relevant documents:

    Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)74 on excessive length of proceedings in Greek administrative courts and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in this respect.

    DH-DD(2011)349E: Information provided by the government (Athanasiou)

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note of the information provided by the authorities on the legislative measures adopted to accelerate procedures before administrative courts, as well as on the legislative process to adopt an effective remedy for excessive length of judicial proceedings taking into account the judgment in Vassilios Athanasiou and others;

    2. recalled that the remedy or the combination of remedies must comply with the principles set by the Court and must also apply to proceedings before the Council of State;

    3. stressed the importance of timely compliance with the pilot judgment and called upon the competent Greek authorities to give priority to finding appropriate solutions in order to provide adequate and sufficient redress to all persons in the applicants’ situation, within the time limit set by the Court (i.e. by 21/03/2012);

    4. invited the Greek authorities to keep the Committee regularly informed on the measures envisaged for the execution of this pilot judgment.

    * * *

    MOLDOVA

Application 01/07/0476

Final on 28/10/2009

OLARU v. Moldova

Enhanced procedure

476/07+ OLARU AND OTHERS, judgment of 28/07/2009, final on 28/10/2009, of 06/04/2010 (Friendly settlement - just satisfaction in the Lungu application, 17911/08), of 20/04/2010, final on 20/07/2010 (Striking-out - just satisfaction in the Racu application, 13136/07), of 28/09/2010, final on 28/12/2010 (just satisfaction in the Gusan application, 22539/05) and of 12/10/2010, final on 12/01/2011 (just satisfaction in the Olaru application, 476/07)

37811/04 PANOV, judgment of 13/07/2010, final on 13/10/2010

Case description: Structural problem highlighted by the Court in applying the pilot judgment procedure: Violations of the applicants' right of access to a court and right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the state's failure to enforce the final domestic judgments awarding them social housing rights or money in lieu of housing (violations of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Status of execution before the meeting: The pilot judgment requires the setting-up of a domestic remedy in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions concerning social housing within a specific deadline. This deadline was extended by the Court until 15/04/2011. On 26/01/2011 the revised draft laws providing for a general remedy in case of excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings were approved by the government and sent to Parliament for adoption. At the 1108th meeting (March 2011), the Committee strongly encouraged the Moldovan authorities to adopt these draft laws as a matter of priority and in any event before the expiry of the deadline set by the Court. In response, the Moldovan authorities reported that the draft laws had been before Parliament for their adoption. Given that the deadline set by the European Court expired on 15 April 2011, the Moldovan authorities are expected to bring the legislative process to an end without any further delay. Information is therefore awaited on the outcome of the legislative process.

The process of ad hoc settlement of similar individual applications lodged with the Court before the delivery of the pilot judgment is in progress. The Court extended the deadline until 1/06/2011.

    Link to relevant documents

    DH-DD(2010)601 Communication from the Registry of the European Court.

    DH-DD(2011)377E Updated information from the Moldovan authorities

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that according to the information given by the Moldovan authorities during the meeting, the draft laws providing a general remedy in cases of excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings had been adopted and would be published and would enter into force within a few weeks;

    2. invited the Moldovan authorities to provide information to the Committee of Ministers on the settlement of individual applications frozen by the European Court.

    * * *

    POLAND

Application 35014/97

Final on 28/04/2008

HUTTEN-CZAPSKA v. Poland

Enhanced procedure

Transfer proposed

Case description: Continued violation, since 10/10/1994 (date of ratification of Protocol No. 1 by Poland), of the applicant's right to property due to limitations on use of property by landlords, and in particular through the rent control scheme (violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1).

Applying the pilot-judgment procedure, the European Court concluded that the violation found was the result of a structural problem linked to a malfunction of national legislation and that the respondent state must secure in its domestic legal order a mechanism maintaining a fair balance between the interests of landlords and the general interest of the community in accordance with the principles of the protection of property.

Status of execution before the meeting: Individual measures: The applicant's property was vacated of all occupants in 2006. Just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses was awarded by the European Court. No other measure appears necessary.

General measures: In its decision of 08/03/2011 in the case of The Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź against Poland (No. 3485/02), the European Court decided to lift the pilot-judgment procedure applied in the Hutten-Czapska judgment on the basis outlined below (DH DD(2011)208E).

Global solutions aimed a resolving the systematic problem identified in the pilot judgment

Largely following the European Court's judgment, from 2006 to 2010 several legislative reforms were adopted. These included possibilities for rent increases; a system for monitoring the levels of rent; creation of a lease based on a fully contractual and freely determined rent (“occasional lease”) and funding for social accommodation to ensure that tenants could leave rent controlled properties. The European Court was satisfied that Poland has changed its laws and procedures such that landlords can now: recover the maintenance costs for their property; include in the rent charged a gradual return for capital investment and make a “decent profit”. Considering that the systematic problem identified in the pilot judgment has been resolved, the Court struck out the Hutten-Czapska follow-up cases. Nevertheless, it left in suspense certain questions considering that they are of the competence of the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the supervision of the execution of the judgment.

Legislative amendment introducing an “occasional lease”

Therefore, in reply to the government's observations which attached importance to the introduction in December 2009 of the “occasional lease” (see above), the Court “does not consider that at this stage of the pilot-judgment procedure it is called upon to determine what particular effects the December 2009 Amendment (…) may or may not have on the property rights of landlords. This task falls to the Committee of Ministers which, in fulfilling its function under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, will have to make its own global evaluation of all the above-mentioned laws in the context of the implementation of the general measures indicated in the pilot judgment” (§ 73).

Redress for persons affected by the systematic violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The main compensation scheme for landlords was introduced in the Thermo-Modernisation and Renovations Act 2008 (the 2008 Act). Under the 2008 Act, compensatory refunds are available only to those persons whose property was subject to the rent-control scheme between 12/11/1994 and 25/04/2005. In its decision, the European Court concludes that for the purposes of its own assessment “it is satisfied that the system introduced (…) offers to the persons affected reasonable prospects of recovering compensation for the damage caused by the systematic violation of their property rights” (§81). However the Court also recalls that the systemic violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 continued after 2005 but it specifies that it “does (…) not find it necessary to give in this case a ruling (…) on the general adequacy of the redress scheme under the 2008 Act. This matter will more appropriately be dealt with by the Committee of Ministers in its supervision of the execution of the pilot judgment” (§§ 80-81).

For more details concerning the measures taken by the authorities, see the above mentioned decision The Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź and the notes of the Committee of Ministers 1100th meeting (November-December 2010).

    Notes:

    The European Court comes to a general conclusion that the matters raised in the pilot judgment have been resolved. However two questions are left in suspense by the Court: possible questions linked to the “occasional lease” and the cut-off date for the awarding of compensatory refunds.

    In these circumstances, the Committee of Ministers could invite the authorities to provide further information on the two questions left in suspense by the Court. As the pilot judgment procedure is closed, it could also envisage transferring this case to the “standard procedure”.

    Link to relevant documents

    Last public notes

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted with satisfaction the measures taken by the Polish authorities to implement the judgment, in particular the measures identified by the European Court, in its decision of 08/03/2011 in the case of The Association of Real Property Owners in Łódź against Poland (see notification by the Registry DH-DD(2011)208E), as amounting to a global solution to the systematic problem identified in the pilot judgment, as well as the compensation scheme for landlords affected by the rent control;

    2. noted that in its decision quoted above the European Court concluded that these measures allowed it to close the pilot judgment procedure;

    3. noted however that in this decision the European Court observed that compensatory refunds are available only to those persons whose property was subject to the rent-control scheme during any period between 12/11/1994 and 25/04/2005, whereas the systemic violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 continued after 25/04/2005;

    4. noted also that the European Court held that it is for the Committee of Ministers to assess the impact of the above mentioned measures, as well as of the introduction of the “occasional lease”, on the execution of the pilot judgment;

    5. invited the Polish authorities to provide further information on these questions;

    6. in the light of the fact that the pilot judgment procedure has been lifted, decided to transfer the case for examination under the standard procedure.

Application 5410/03

Final on 24/09/2007

TYSIAC v. Poland

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Interference with the applicant's right to respect for her private life, due to the absence, in 2000, of an adequate legal framework for the exercise of the right to therapeutic abortion in the event of disagreement between the patient and the specialist doctor empowered to decide on such an abortion (violation of Art. 8).

Status of execution before the meeting: Action Report submitted on 24/03/2011: DH-DD(2011)248

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. No other measure appears necessary.

General measures: On 05/06/2009, the Law on the Rights of Patients entered into force, which concerns patients' rights in general and also applies to the conduct of lawful abortion. According to this law, a patient may lodge an appeal, within 30 days, against a doctor's decision to refuse abortion on medical grounds to a commission of physicians.

The appeal shall be examined by the Commission without delay, and no later than 30 days after it was lodged. The patient may submit information and clarification concerning the case. The Commission delivers a written, reasoned decision on the basis of the medical documentation and, if need be, having heard the patient.

The Commission is composed of three physicians appointed by the Patient Rights' Ombudsman from a list of physicians, updated each year. In order to guarantee the impartiality of the Commission, it is possible to exclude a member from participation in proceedings, either ex officio or upon request of the patient. The decisions of the Commission are final; there is no possibility of appeal.

The Commission, which began work after the adoption of the Ordinance of the Minister of Health of 10/03/2010 governing its detailed functioning, has not yet examined any appeal concerning abortion.

For more detail on the legislative provisions and activities to raise awareness of the judgment and the new law, see the Action report provided by the Polish authorities.

    Notes: In the judgment, the European Court recalled that once a legislature decides to allow abortion, effective access to therapeutic abortion should be guaranteed by a number of factors, such as (§§ 117-118 of the judgment):

    - some sort of procedure before an independent body competent to review the reasons and the relevant evidence;

    - the possibility for a pregnant woman to be heard in person and have her views considered;

    - the obligation for the competent body to issue written grounds for its decision.

    - decisions taken as and when due, in order to prevent or limit a prejudice which could result for the woman’s health from a late abortion.

    Procedure before an independent body

    In the context of review panels consisting of members of a particular profession, the European Court’s case-law seems to provide that the presence of legally qualified or judicial members is a real guarantee of independence (see, for example, the judgment given by the European Court in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere against Belgium, No. 6878/75; 7238/75, §§ 58-59, of Campbell and Fell against United Kingdom, No. 7819/77; 7878/77, §§ 77-85 and of Frankowicz against Poland, No. 53025/99, § 64).

    In relation to the question of independence of the Commission of Physicians, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health in his report on Poland (20/05/2010, document No. A/HRC/14/20/Add.3) estimated that a panel composed exclusively of medical professionals has a structural bias, affecting its impartiality. The Rapporteur also considers that this cannot be cured by the right of the patient to challenge the partiality of an individual physician (§§ 44-45).

    Possibility for a pregnant woman to be heard in person and written grounds for decisions

    The legislation appears to provide a guarantee that a pregnant woman has a possibility to be heard in person by the Commission. The legislation also obliges the Commission to provide a reasoned decision in writing (the Report of the Special Rapporteur states that these two aspects are missing from the Law; however, this conclusion appears to have been made prior to the adoption of the Ordinance of 10/03/2010, which establishes the relevant provisions).

    Decisions taken as and when due

    As to the critical importance of the time factor, the Commission’s decisions must be delivered at the latest 30 days after an appeal is lodged. This time limit, whilst clear, is significantly longer than that provided in other comparable legislation (see DH-DD(2010)610E: submission from Centre for Reproductive Rights, paragraph I). The authorities indicate that the 30-day limit is the maximum term and in reality, the Commission will issue its decision immediately (see DH-DD(2010)610E reply from the Polish authorities). However, the Commission has not yet examined any appeal concerning abortion so the Commission has not yet established a regular practice in this regard.

    Links to relevant documents

    Action Report: DH-DD(2011)248

    Communication from an NGO and reply of the government: DH-DD(2010)610

    DH-DD(2011)413E Communication from a NGO and reply of the government

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note of the additional information submitted by the authorities during the meeting on the questions arising from the legal framework adopted in order to provide procedural safeguards in the event of disagreement between the patient and the doctor empowered to deliver the certificate needed to perform a therapeutic abortion;

    2. considered that this information necessitates deeper examination and invited the authorities to submit such information to the Committee in writing, so that it can make a complete assessment of the state of execution of this judgment, if possible at their 1120th meeting (September 2011) (DH).

    * * *

    ROMANIA

Application 46430/99

Final on 05/10/2004

BARBU ANGHELESCU (No. 1) GROUP v. Romania

Enhanced procedure

46430/99 Anghelescu Barbu No. 1, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005

64541/01 Bolovan, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

42066/98 Bursuc, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 12/01/2005

45661/99 Carabulea, judgment of 13/07/2010, final on 13/10/2010

48254/99 Cobzaru, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

6773/02 Damian-Burueană and Damian, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009

49234/99 Dumitru Popescu No. 1, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007

25230/03 Georgescu, judgment of 13/05/2008, final on 13/08/2008

4390/03 Ghiga Chiujdea, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011

64536/01 Iambor No. 1, judgment of 24/06/2008, final on 24/09/2008

14526/03 Lupaşcu, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

43247/02 Melinte, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007

10778/02 Niţă, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 06/04/2009

71090/01 Olteanu, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

42722/02 Stoica, judgment of 04/03/2008, final on 04/06/2008

Case description: This group of cases concerns:

- the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicants by members of the police amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment or torture, which caused the victim's death in the case of Carabulea (substantive violations of Art. 2 and Art. 3);

- the ineffectiveness of the investigations into such events particularly on account of the hierarchical or institutional bonds existing between the state officials in charge of the investigations and the accused and of shortcomings in the handling of evidence (procedural violations of Art. 2 and 3);

- the lack of an effective remedy to complain of the ill-treatment suffered (violations of Art. 13);

- the racially-motivated ill-treatment and/or the authorities' failure to investigate possible racial motives in the applicants' ill-treatment (violations of Art. 14 taken in conjunction with Art. 3 and Art. 13).

- several other issues related to pre-trial detention, the length of civil and criminal proceedings, the protection of one of the applicants' home and the right to individual application (violations of Art. 5, 6, 8 and 34).

The death and the ill-treatment in theses cases occurred between 1995 and 2001.

Status of execution before the meeting: General measures: An outline of the legislative changes and the awareness-raising measures relevant to the execution of these judgments is presented in the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)25rev prepared by the Secretariat. The authorities' assessment of the impact of the measures taken and further information and clarification on some outstanding issues are necessary.

Information was provided by the authorities on 18 and 20 May 2011 on the general measures taken to prevent similar violations to those of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 13 found in the cases of Cobzaru and Stoica. This information is under assessment.

Individual measures: Information was provided on the reopening of the investigations in the cases of Anghelescu Barbu (No. 1), Bursuc and Melinte and is presented in the memorandum.

Clarification is necessary in the case of Melinte. Information is awaited on the individual measures in the other cases, in particular on the reopening of the criminal investigations or the outcome of the criminal proceedings (Damian-Burueana and Damian) against the members of police involved in the incidents.

    Notes: Considering the state of the execution of these cases, the Committee might wish to take stock of the measures taken by the authorities and request supplementary information on the outstanding questions regarding the individual and general measures. In this respect, the importance should be underlined in particular of two issues on which the Committee awaits clarification: a number of procedural safeguards against ill treatment in police custody and the practical training of the members of the police on the requirements of the Convention.

    Links to the relevant documents:

    CM/Inf/DH(2011)25rev

    DH-DD(2011)378E Communication from Romania

    Decision

    The Deputies, having taken note of the state of execution of this group of cases, presented in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat CM/Inf/DH(2011)25rev,

    1. noted with interest the significant number of measures taken by the Romanian authorities, including legislative measures, to prevent the ill-treatment of detained persons in the hands of the police and enhance the effectiveness of investigations of alleged ill-treatment;

    2. underlined the need for the authorities to assess the practical impact of the general measures already implemented and to inform the Committee of their conclusions in this respect and of the existence of any mechanism to monitor this impact at domestic level;

    3. noted that a certain number of questions related to the general measures still require to be clarified, in particular as regards the procedural safeguards against ill-treatment in police custody (see part IV of the memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)25rev) and the practical in-service training of the members of the police on the requirements of the Convention;

    4. noted that information has been recently provided by the Romanian authorities on the measures taken to prevent similar violations to those found by the Court in two cases on account of the racist motives for ill-treatment inflicted by members of the police and the authorities’ failure to investigate possible racist motives at the origin of the violence inflicted on the applicants; noted that this information remains to be assessed by the Secretariat;

    5. recalled that supplementary information is expected in a certain number of cases as regards the individual measures (for more details see the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)25rev);

    6. invited the authorities to submit the information concerning the outstanding issues in the form of an action plan;

    7. decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)25rev.

    * * *

Application 22088/04

Final on 06/03/2008

BRAGADIREANU GROUP v. Romania

Enhanced procedure

22088/04 Bragadireanu, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

12535/04 Artimenco, judgment of 30/06/2009, final on 30/09/2009

6586/03 Brânduşe, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

75109/01+ Burzo, judgment of 30/06/2009, final on 30/09/2009

10675/03 Dimakos, judgment of 06/07/2010, final on 22/11/2010

37186/03 Florea, judgment of 14/09/2010, final on 14/12/2010

25867/03 Iamandi, judgment of 01/06/2010, final on 01/09/2010

14352/04 Jiga, judgment of 16/03/2010, final on 16/06/2010

25763/03 Măciucă, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009

36110/03 Marinescu Mariana, judgment of 02/02/2010, final on 28/06/2010

24708/03 Ogică, judgment of 27/05/2010, final on 27/08/2010

4792/03 Petrea, judgment of 29/04/2008, final on 01/12/2008

14262/03 Racareanu, judgment of 01/06/2010, final on 04/10/2010

3036/04 Radu Eugen Gabriel, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

58478/00 Rupa No. 1, judgment of 16/02/2008, final on 16/03/2009

28304/02 Schwartz Aharon, judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

12934/02 Stoicescu Marian, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

5269/02 Tănase, judgment of 12/05/2009, final on 12/08/2009

34619/04 Coman, judgment of 26/10/2010, final on 26/01/2011

17044/03 Cucolas, judgment of 26/10/2010, final on 26/01/2011

24419/04 Grozavu, judgment of 2/11/2010, final on 2/02/2011

20307/02 Ali, judgment of 9/11/2010, final on 9/02/2011

19832/04 Porumb, judgment of 7/12/2010, final on 7/03/2011

Case description: Inhuman and degrading treatment mainly on account of overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions in prisons and police detention facilities between 1998 and 2009. Failure of the authorities to secure to two of the applicants appropriate medical care and treatment in prison and to provide the facilities required by another applicant's serious health condition. Several other issues regarding the protection of the prisoners' rights (violations of Article 3).

Status of execution before the meeting: General measures: An action plan was submitted by the authorities on 7 April 2011 concerning only the situation in prisons. An outline of the general measures taken to date and of those still envisaged, together with a provisional calendar for their implementation, is presented in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat, accompanied by an assessment.

Individual measures: The action plan contains updated information on the current situation of the applicants in the cases of Bragadireanu, Brânduşe and Iamandi, which is assessed in the Memorandum. Information is urgently awaited on whether the applicants in the cases of Radu and Coman are still detained and if so, in which conditions.

    Links to relevant documents:

    Action plan / Action report DH-DD(2011)301

    CM/Inf/DH(2011)26

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that these cases raise complex issues, related in particular to the structural problem of prison overcrowding in Romania and to the conditions of detention in prisons and police detention facilities;

    2. took note with satisfaction of the action plan for the execution of these judgments submitted on 7 April 2011 and of the far-reaching general measures taken by the Romanian authorities to remedy the issues at the origin of these cases;

    3. underlined that in order to be able to assess the measures taken, it is important to have at their disposal the authorities’ assessment of the impact of the reforms adopted and envisaged on the main issues identified by the Court; invited the Romanian authorities to provide information in this respect;

    4. noted in this connection that it would be useful if the monitoring mechanism set up at the domestic level used evaluation criteria similar to those used by the European Court and invited the Romanian authorities to provide clarification on this point;

    5. invited moreover the Romanian authorities to provide further information on the outstanding questions identified in the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)26, in particular as regards the setting up at the domestic level of an effective remedy made available to prisoners in respect of complaints related to the conditions of detention;

    6. noted that the action plan submitted by the authorities does not refer to the measures taken or envisaged as regards the conditions of detention in police detention facilities and invited the authorities to provide information on this subject;

    7. recalled that information is urgently awaited on the individual situation of two of the applicants and that some details are still necessary as regards the situation of two other applicants (for more details see the abovementioned Memorandum);

    8. decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2011)26.

    * * *

Application 57001/00

Final on 30/11/2005

STRAIN AND OTHERS GROUP v. Romania

(list of cases)

Enhanced procedure

Case description: The violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases originated in an important systemic problem connected with the ineffectiveness of the mechanism set up in Romania after 1989 to afford restitution or compensation for properties nationalised during the communist period.

A first series of cases concern the sale by the state of nationalised property to the tenants, without securing compensation for the legitimate owners, despite domestic courts' findings, between 1993 and 2006, that the acts of nationalisation had been unlawful (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, see the case of Strain and others, judgment of 21/07/2005).

A second series of cases relate to delays by the administrative authorities in enforcing or failure to enforce judicial or administrative decisions delivered between 1991 and 2006, ordering restitution of nationalised property and/or payment of compensation in lieu (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or of Article 6§1, see the Popescu Sabin case, judgment of 02/03/2004 and the Viasu case, judgment of 09/12/2008).

Other cases concern particular situations resulting from the ineffectiveness of the restitution mechanism (Faimblat, Tudor Tudor, Silviu Marin, Drãculeţ).

Status of execution before the meeting: General measures: the Romanian authorities submitted an action plan for the execution of these judgments, in February 2010, as well as supplementary information in September 2010 (for more details see the latest public notes in this group of cases). In October 2010 the European Court delivered a pilot judgment in the case of Maria Atanasiu and others. The Court stated in this judgment that the Romanian state must take measures to ensure effective protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 6§1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in the context of all similar cases within 18 months from the date on which the judgment becomes final. At the 1100th meeting (November-December 2010), the Committee of Ministers called on the Romanian authorities to: urgently to set a provisional calendar for the implementation of the action plan submitted in February 2010 and supplemented in September 2010; to keep the Committee informed of the progress made, in particular of the envisaged legal reforms; to submit to the Committee as precise and comprehensive report as possible on the progress of the compensation process for owners whose property rights have been prejudiced and on the number of claimants yet to be compensated. The Committee is still awaiting a reply to these questions.

The pilot judgment delivered in the Maria Atanasiu and others case became final on 12 January 2011.

On 17 February 2011, a high-level round table gathering representatives of 21 member states of the Council of Europe was held in Bucharest to discuss possible ways to tackle the challenges raised by the process of restitution of and/or compensation for properties nationalised before 1989 in Central and Eastern European countries (see the conclusions of the round table).

Individual measures: Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicants in a number of cases, in particular whether their properties have been returned or if they have received just satisfaction for pecuniary damage.

    Links to relevant documents:

    Latest public notes

    Conclusions of the Round Table on restitution of properties nationalised during the communist regimes

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that the questions raised in these cases concern a large-scale systemic problem, due to the dysfunctions of the Romanian system of restitution or compensation in respect of property nationalised during the Communist period;

    2. recalled the decision taken at the 1100th meeting (November-December 2010) (DH), in which they called on the Romanian authorities urgently to set a provisional calendar for the implementation of the various stages specified in the action plan for the execution of these judgments and submit some additional information;

    3. welcomed the high-level Round Table organised in Bucharest on 17 February 2011 by the Romanian authorities and by the Council of Europe in co-operation with the Human Rights Trust Fund on the issue of the general measures required for the execution of judgments of the European Court concerning the restitution of properties nationalised under communist regimes; noted with interest the conclusions of the Round Table as regards the good practices to be followed in this field;

    4. recalled that in conformity with the pilot judgment delivered by the Court in the case of Maria Atanasiu and others, the Romanian state must, by 12 July 2012 put in place general measures to guarantee the effective implementation of the right to restitution, be it in kind or by award of compensation;

    5. in this context, insisted on their request to the Romanian authorities urgently to set a provisional calendar for the stages specified in the action plan and to submit quickly the additional information indicated in the Committee’s decision of December 2010, if possible through a revised action plan.

    * * *

    RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Application 57942/00

Final on 06/07/2005

KHASHIYEV GROUP v. Russian Federation

(list of cases)

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Violations resulting from and/or relating to the Russian authorities' actions during anti-terrorist operations in Chechnya in 1999-2004 (mainly unjustified use of force, disappearances, unacknowledged detentions, torture and ill-treatment, unlawful search and seizure and destruction of property), lack of effective investigations into the alleged abuses and absence of an effective domestic remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Several cases also concern failure to co-operate with the Convention organs as required under Article 38 of the Convention.

Status of execution before the meeting: The progress made in the execution of these judgments and outstanding issues are summarised in different Memoranda (CM/Inf/DH(2006)32rev2, CM/Inf/DH(2008)33 and CM/Inf/DH(2008)33add, for the last up-date see CM/Inf/DH(2010)26).

The Committee of Ministers' examination is presently focused on the state of domestic investigations carried out following the judgments of the European Court and falling under the jurisdiction of the Special Investigative Unit set up within the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic. It has been emphasised that the effectiveness of general measures adopted so far will very much depend on the results achieved in the concrete cases. At the 1108th meeting (March 2011), the Russian authorities provided information of general character on the issues raised in the last public memorandum DD-DH(2011)130E. They also indicated in this submission that they had provided a note concerning the progress of investigation in 10 cases, the list of which was determined during the bilateral consultations with the Secretariat DD-DH(2011)129E (confidential). For the latter note the Russian authorities presented a request for confidentiality in accordance with the Committee of Ministers' Rules for the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court.

    Notes

    The information provided by the Russian authorities raises three principal issues.

    1) Effectiveness

    It would appear from the analysis of the information provided by the Russian authorities that the main shortcomings which undermined the effectiveness of the initial investigations remain despite the measures adopted so far. This concerns, in particular, the investigative authorities’ inability to identify any military unit present or to obtain other information concerning the military operations carried out at the material time. It is recalled that the European Court has already pointed out the lack of co-operation by different law-enforcement agencies in dealing with the prosecutor’s requests3. This problem has also been highlighted by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment4.

    This problem raises a question as to the investigators’ powers vis-à-vis other law-enforcement agencies. It remains unclear whether the investigators do have access to classified and military data. It is observed in this context that a permanent working group was created within the Investigative Committee with a view to obtaining information on special operations conducted in the Chechen Republic. However, it still remains to be clarified how the setting up of this group will improve the situation, in particular in cases where the investigators have been unable to obtain “any information relevant for the investigation” from the archives of other law-enforcement agencies. The role of military investigators also remains to be clarified, in particular whether they have more powers as regards access to classified and military data and, if so, to what extent they are associated with the investigations conducted by the Special Investigative Unit mentioned above.

    In this respect, the Russian authorities were invited to inform the Committee as to whether the issue of possible responsibility for not holding records concerning persons apprehended and other relevant data has ever been examined in the framework of the current investigations.

    Another question raised with the Russian authorities was whether the issue of responsibility of superior officers was examined by the investigators. Information in this respect would be useful.

    The Russian authorities were further invited to clarify the nature of the obstacles encountered, e.g. legislative, administrative or financial. No information was received in this respect either.

    Finally, it does not seem that specific measures are being taken with a view to finding the whereabouts of persons who disappeared. It appears that the measures aimed at establishing the whereabouts of disappeared persons are limited to addressing different requests to a number of bodies. It would however appear that the setting up of a comprehensive and coordinated policy is all the more necessary and urgent since recent communications by the Court suggest the persistence of the phenomena of disappearances in the Republics of North Caucasus. It would therefore be useful to receive information on the measures taken in this respect.

    2) Information of the victims’ families about the investigations

    It is recalled that in all these judgments, the European Court found violations of Article 2 on account of the investigative authorities’ failure to question the applicants and/or to grant them victim status and/or regularly inform them about the progress of the investigation. The measures taken to remedy this shortcoming are described in memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)26 (see in particular §§ 18 and 23). In particular, a new practice has been introduced within the Special Investigative Unit to hold regular meetings with the victims and to provide them with reports on the progress of domestic investigations. At the 1108th meeting (March 2011), the Russian authorities provided copies of such reports5.

    It results from the analysis of the reports that no questions were raised by the victims or their representatives in relation to the domestic investigations carried out. However, it would appear that, at least in certain cases, victims’ representatives made detailed submissions to the Committee under Rule 9§1 of the Committee’s Rules for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments in which they complained about the investigators’ failure to carry out a number of investigative steps and put concrete questions to the investigators6. The Committee may wish to invite the Russian authorities to comment on this situation.

    3) Remedy provided by Article 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure

    The effectiveness of this remedy cannot be assessed in abstracto but in concreto, i.e. in the light of the measures taken by the investigators to ensure that appropriate action is taken to remedy the shortcomings identified by a judicial decision issued under Article 125 CCP. It is recalled that the European Court, when considering the effectiveness of the remedy provided by Article 125 CCP indicated that “the Government have not demonstrated that this remedy would have been capable of providing redress in the applicants’ situation – in other words, that it would have rectified the shortcomings in the investigation…”.

    Consequently it would be useful to receive the authorities’ comments on the use of this remedy and its outcome in the particular cases at issue here. It is recalled in particular that the applicants’ representatives in two cases here at issue, i.e. those of Isigova and others and Khadisov and Tsechoyev, made a submission with regard to the difficulties they encountered while trying to use this remedy7. It would appear that the applicants’ complaints were examined by the domestic courts in July 2010. However, the report provided by the Russian authorities in February 2011 does not contain any comments in this respect8.

    Links to relevant documents: (Most recent communications from the injured parties or their representatives (Rule 9.1))

    DH-DD(2010)384E Communication from the applicants' representatives in the Kashiyev group of cases against the Russian Federation

    DH-DD(2010)291E Communication from the representatives of the applicants in the group of cases Khashyev against the Russian Federation (section 4.3)

    DH-DD(2010)587E Communication from the representatives of the applicants in 3 cases of the Khashiyev group against the Russian Federation

    DH-DD(2011)410E Communication from a NGO, legal representative of the applicants, in the Khashiyev group of cases

    DH-DD(2011)422E: Communication from a NGO in the Khashiyev group of cases against Russian Federation (Application No. 57942/00).

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled states’ obligation to carry out an effective investigation to secure the effective implementation of domestic laws protecting the right to life and, in those cases involving state agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility;

    2. recalled further that such investigation must be independent, accessible to the victim’s family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results;

    3. noted with regret that the information provided by the Russian authorities has not yet demonstrated the effectiveness of the measures adopted so far for conducting investigations in line with the Convention’s requirements;

    4. expressed deep concern at the lack of any conclusive results in the investigations, in particular in those cases in which members of the security forces may have been involved;

    5. decided to grant the Russian authorities' request for confidentiality of the document DH-DD(2011)129E;

    6. decided to reassess the situation at the latest at their 1128th meeting (November-December 2011) (DH), on the basis of a draft interim resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat.

    * * *

    "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Application 74651/01

Final on 15/04/2009

ASSOCIATION OF CITIZENS RADKO & PAUNKOVSKI v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Unjustified dissolution of the applicant association shortly after its foundation following a decision of the Constitutional Court declaring the association's articles null and void without any evidence that the latter had any intention to resort to violence to achieve its aims and without any explanation why a negation of Macedonian ethnicity by the association had been tantamount to violent destruction of the constitutional order (violation of Article 11).

Status of execution before the meeting: Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant association filed a request in July 2009 with the Central Register for its re-registration. This request was rejected because it failed to comply with a number of formal requirements. The Central Register asked that the applicant association comply with these requirements. However, this request was not complied with and the request for re-registration was therefore dismissed (see, the link below for the grounds of dismissal). An appeal before the second-instance registration authority was also dismissed because the applicant association did not specify any reasons for its appeal. The applicant association then lodged an appeal against this decision, which was also rejected by the Administrative Court in June 2010. The applicant association challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

The Government Agent of the respondent state organised a seminar in February 2011 on the execution of this judgment. All the authorities involved in the proceedings attended this seminar.

On 26/05/2011, the authorities of the respondent State informed the Committee that on 17/05/2011 the Supreme Court had quashed the decisions of the Administrative Court and the second-instance registration authority and remitted the case to the registration authority for re-examination. The Supreme Court also indicated that the registration authority should take into consideration the judgment of the European Court in assessing the applicant association’s request, as well as the new Law on Associations and Foundations adopted in April 2010. Pursuant to this law, the registration authority no longer has the power to assess the lawfulness of the registration documents. The authorities also indicated that the new Law on Associations and Foundations is aimed at facilitating the registration of associations.

    Links to relevant documents:

    Link to the last public notes

    Action report: DH-DD(2011)399E and DH-DD(2011)399addE

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that the Supreme Court had quashed the decisions of the Administrative Court and the second-instance registration authority which had rejected the applicant association’s complaints concerning the dismissal of its request for registration at first instance;

    2. noted further that the case has been remitted to the registration authority for re-examination and that in this context the Supreme Court indicated that the latter should take into account the judgment of the European Court when assessing the applicant association's request;

    3. invited the authorities to keep them informed on the outcome of proceedings;

    4. noted with interest that a new law on associations and foundations was adopted in April 2010;

    5. instructed the Secretariat to provide them with an assessment of this law.

    * * *

    TURKEY

Application 39437/98

Final on 24/04/2006

ULKE v. Turkey

Enhanced procedure

Case description: Degrading treatment as a result of the applicant's repetitive convictions between 1996 and 1999 and imprisonment for having refused to perform compulsory military service on account of his convictions as a pacifist and conscientious objector (substantive violation of Article 3).

Status of execution: The applicant has been in hiding for a long time as a result of the continuing threat of prosecution. In 2007, despite the findings of the European Court in this case, he was again summonsed to serve his sentence. Since the adoption of the first interim resolution in October 2007, the Committee has been regularly examining the case at each of its human rights meetings. In the second interim resolution adopted in March 2009, the Committee strongly urged "the Turkish authorities to take without further delay all necessary measures to put an end to the violations of the applicant's rights under the Convention and to make the legislative changes necessary to prevent similar violations of the Convention". Given that no tangible information had been provided on the measures envisaged, the Chairman of the Committee sent a letter to his Turkish counterpart in October 2009 conveying the Committee's grave preoccupation regarding the absence of any information on the measures required in this case. In his reply of February 2010, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed the commitment of his authorities to executing the judgment of the Court and informed the Committee that work on legislative amendments was being conducted by the competent authorities. Subsequently, the Committee invited the Turkish authorities to provide concrete information on the announced legislative work. However, no concrete information was provided in this respect. At the 1100th meeting (November-December 2010), the Turkish authorities stated that the execution of this judgment raised certain difficulties since it required legislative amendments concerning military service. At the same meeting, the Committee once again invited the Turkish authorities to provide information on the development of the legislative process and to clarify whether the applicant is still being sought by the authorities to serve his previous sentences. At the 1108th meeting (March 2011), after having noted that no information has been provided by the authorities on the questions raised at the 1100th meeting, the Committee once again stressed the urgency and priority of the adoption of the necessary measures and urged once again the authorities to clarify at the latest at the 1115th meeting (June 2011) whether the applicant was still being searched for by the authorities to serve his previous sentences. However, no information has been provided on these questions.

    Links to relevant documents

    Interim resolutions: CM/ResDH(2007)109; CM/ResDH(2009)45

    Letter sent by the Chairman and the response of the Turkish authorities: DD(2009)556; DD(2010)107

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. took note of the information provided by the Turkish authorities during the meeting that the applicant in this case is not deprived of his liberty;

    2. regretted, however, that no information has been provided regarding as to whether the applicant is still being searched for or not;

    3. urged the Turkish authorities to provide information to the Committee without any further delay as to the applicant’s situation;

    4. reiterated that legislative measures are required to prevent similar violations;

    5. strongly invited the Turkish authorities to give priority to the adoption of the necessary legislative measures without any further delay after the general elections of June 2011.

    * * *

    UKRAINE

Application 34056/02

Final on 08/02/2006

GONGADZE v. Ukraine

Enhanced procedure

Case description: The authorities' failure to protect the life of the applicant's husband, a journalist known for his criticism of those in power, threatened by unknown persons, resulting in his abduction and death (violation of Article 2); lack of an effective investigation into his abduction and death due to the fact that the state authorities were more preoccupied with proving the lack of involvement of high state officials in the case than by discovering the truth (violation of Article 2); degrading treatment of the journalist's wife on account of the attitude of the investigating authorities (violation of Article 3); lack of an effective remedy in respect of the inefficient investigation and in order to obtain compensation (violation of Article 13).

Status of execution before the meeting: The investigation has been pending for more than 10 years. The Committee has already adopted two Interim Resolutions (CM/ResDH(2008)35 and CM/ResDH(2009)74) strongly encouraging the Ukrainian authorities to enhance their efforts with a view to bringing to an end the ongoing investigation. Since the last Interim Resolution, a number of developments have taken place in the investigation, in particular:

- several post-mortem reports of the remains of the skull found at the scene of crime were carried out. These reports included a DNA test made at the applicant's request. The result of these examinations demonstrated that the remains found belonged to the applicant's husband;

- the investigation against O. Pukach, the superior of the three police officers convicted for murder of the applicant's husband, has been completed. The applicant was given access to the investigation file when the investigation was completed. O. Pukach has been charged with a number of offences and the case-file has been referred to the trial court;

- phonoscopic examination of the tape-recordings implicating the former President of Ukraine, L. Kuchma and other high-level state officials in the disappearance and murder of G. Gongadze was completed;

- L. Kuchma was charged with abuse of power by giving unlawful orders to Y. Kravchenko, the Minister of Interior at the time, to use force against G. Gongadze that resulted in his death. The pre-trial investigation against L. Kuchma was brought to an end on 26/04/2011. The applicant was given access to the investigation file when the investigation was completed. The criminal proceedings against L. Kuchma are currently pending.

General measures are being examined by the Committee in the Khaylo group of cases.

    Links to relevant documents

    Interim resolutions: CM/ResDH(2008)35, and CM/ResDH(2009)74

    DH-DD(2011)376E Updated information from the Ukrainian authorities

    DH-DD(2011)432E : Communication from Ukraine in the case of Gongadze against Ukraine (Application No. 34056/02)

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted with interest the measures taken by the Ukrainian authorities since the Committee’s last interim resolution aimed at establishing the circumstances of abduction and death of the applicant’s husband and the persons involved in the crime;

    2. noted in this context the developments that have taken place in the investigation, i.e. the completion of the pre-trial investigation against O.Pukach and the initiation of criminal proceedings against the former President of Ukraine, L.Kuchma;

    3. invited the Ukrainian authorities to keep the Committee regularly informed of the developments in the pending proceedings against O.Pukach and L.Kuchma as well as of any other measures taken, and the results achieved, to ensure full execution of the judgment of the Court in the present case.

    * * *

Applications 40450/04, 56848/00

Final on 15/01/2010, 29/09/2004

YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV v. Ukraine

ZHOVNER GROUP v. Ukraine

Enhanced procedure

40450/04 YURIY NIKOLAYEVICH IVANOV, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

56848/00 ZHOVNER GROUP AND 385 OTHER CASES (see LIST OF CASES)

Case description: Structural problem highlighted by the Court by applying the pilot judgment procedure: violations of the rights of access to a court and protection of property on account of the failure or serious delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments; lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 6§1, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Court applied the pilot judgment procedure in the case of Yury Nikolaevich Ivanov and set a specific deadline for the setting up of a domestic remedy in respect of excessive length of enforcement proceedings. The Court also indicated that specific reforms in Ukraine's legislation and administrative practice should be implemented without delay. The need for a domestic remedy and for the adoption of specific reforms has already been highlighted by a great number of judgments in the Zhovner group of cases. The Court further invited the respondent state to settle on ad hoc basis all similar applications lodged with it before the delivery of the pilot judgment (1,600) and decided to adjourn the examination of similar cases.

Status of execution before the meeting: Since the last Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)222 adopted by the Committee in response to the delays in the implementation of the pilot judgment, a draft law addressing problems identified by the Court and providing a domestic remedy was tabled with Parliament on 14/01/2011. No progress has been made in its adoption so far. On 18/01/2011, the Court decided to extend the deadline set by the pilot judgment until 15/07/2011 (see DH-DD(2011)54). As regards the ad hoc settlement of individual applications lodged with the Court before the delivery of the pilot judgment, it would appear that limited progress has been made so far.

Information on individual measures is still awaited in a number of cases in the Zhovner group (i.e. the enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered in the applicants' favour).

    The Committee has been examining the Zhovner group of cases since 2004. In the last Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)222 adopted as a result of the delays in the implementation of the pilot judgment, the Committee strongly urged the Ukrainian authorities at the highest political level to adopt as a matter of priority the specific reforms in Ukraine's legislation and administrative practice required by the pilot judgment.

    Upon request of the Ukrainian authorities, in the context of a Human Rights Trust Fund project, technical consultations have been carried out between the Secretariat and the authorities on the provisions of the draft law. The draft law concerns measures to solve a number of problems at the origin of the repetitive violations of the Convention and measures to set up appropriate remedial mechanisms. From this point of view, the reform constitutes a necessary response to the pilot judgment and the repeated calls of the Committee of Ministers.

    As regards the remedial mechanism itself, the draft law provides the following solution:

    a) the execution of court decisions which concern disputes which occurred before the present law enters into force, i.e. before 1 January 2012, will be carried out from the state budget as from 2013, once the total amount of the debt is established, in accordance with the procedure to be established by the Cabinet of Ministers. To establish the total amount of the debt to be paid and, consequently, to elaborate the appropriate payment mechanism in due time, the draft law sets specific deadlines for all creditors to submit their execution documents to the competent authorities.

b) the execution of court decisions which concern disputes which occurred after 1 January 2012 will be regulated under the new procedure set out in the draft law. According to this procedure, debts resulting from court judgment against a state body shall be paid by the State Treasury from the special budgetary line within 3 months after the decision is served for enforcement. The state also undertakes to pay, within 3 months, a judgment debt of a state enterprise if the latter fails to do so on its own within the deadline given by the Law on Enforcement Proceedings, i.e. within 6 month after the decision is served for enforcement. Compensation shall be paid automatically after the expiry of the payment deadline set by the law.

    It appears that the mechanism provided by the draft law for execution of future court decision would constitute a good solution as it also guarantees the ultimate execution of the judgment and avoids the claimants need for to come back again and again before the domestic courts and to multiply judicial proceedings. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism could be seriously undermined by the low level of compensation currently provided by the draft law. The subsequent availability of adequate budgetary allocations in the appropriate budgetary legislation constitutes another sine qua non condition for the effectiveness of the whole mechanism.

    As far as the existing debt is concerned, its acknowledgement by the state and legislative undertaking to pay it out is a welcome development. The approach chosen by the Ukrainian authorities first to identify the debt and then to pay it under the special procedure may not contravene the Convention as such, bearing in mind the possible scale of the problem and its impact on the economic situation in the state. However, considering that it will result in an interference with the rights of persons affected by this measure, the implementation of this measure should be reasonably justified and proportionate. If these issues are settled, this mechanism might also contribute to the resolution of the problem and prevent new, similar violations of the Convention.

    Links to relevant documents:

    CM/Inf/DH(2007)30rev and CM/Inf/DH(2007)33

    Interim Resolutions CM/ResDH(2008)1; CM/ResDH(2009)159; CM/ResDH(2010)222

    DH-DD(2011)54 Communication from the Registry of the European Court

    DH-DD(2011)433E: Communication from Ukraine in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov (Application No. 40450/04) and the Zhovner group of cases (Application No. 56848/00) against Ukraine -

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. observed that the draft law to resolve the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions was before the Ukrainian Parliament for adoption;

    2. strongly encouraged the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that the draft law meets the key requirements of the Convention and to give priority to its adoption before the expiry of the deadline set by the Court in its pilot judgment, i.e. 15 July 2011;

    3. urged the Ukrainian authorities to enhance their efforts to resolve the similar individual cases pending before the Court lodged before the delivery of the pilot judgment;

    4. strongly urged the Ukrainian authorities to enforce the domestic judicial decisions in a number of cases in the Zhovner group where this has not yet been done without further delay.

    * * *

    UNITED KINGDOM

Application 61498/08

Final on 04/10/2010

AL-SAADOON & MUFDHI v. the United Kingdom

Enhanced procedure

Case description: The United Kingdom authorities' transfer of the applicants (both Iraqi nationals) to Iraqi custody to stand trial for war crimes despite the indication of an interim measure under Rule 39 by the European Court to the effect that the applicants should not be removed from British custody (violations of Articles 3, 34 and 13).

Under Article 46, the European Court found that "compliance with Article 3 of the Convention requires the United Kingdom authorities to seek to put an end to the applicants' suffering as soon as possible, by taking all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that they will not be subjected to the death penalty" (§171).

Status of execution before the meeting: Individual measures: The United Kingdom authorities have indicated that the applicants were acquitted by the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) on 27 April 2011. However, the applicants remain in detention and the Prosecutor has indicated that he will appeal the acquittal, he has until 27 May to submit the request for an appeal in writing. In light of this possible appeal, the status of the applicants' acquittal is uncertain and they remain at risk of the death penalty.

General measures: an Action plan/report was submitted on 6 May 2011 (see DH-DD(2011)356E).

    Notes: In the decision adopted at their 1108th meeting (March 2011), the Deputies noted that the Judge for the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT) (3rd Felony Trial Panel) and eleven other persons requested visas to travel to London to interview a number of United Kingdom-based witnesses. The Committee welcomed the fact that the United Kingdom authorities had indicated to the IHT that before examining any request for assistance, they would need credible assurances that the death penalty would not be applied.

    The United Kingdom authorities have since confirmed that no assistance was given, as these assurances were not obtained. On 10 April, the IHT withdrew its request for legal assistance and subsequently acquitted the applicants.

    Link to relevant documents:

    DH-DD(2011)356E Action plan / Action report

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that the applicants were acquitted by the Iraqi High Tribunal on 27 April 2011 and noted that on 17 May 2011 the Prosecutor appealed the acquittal but did not request application of the death penalty;

    2. took note with satisfaction of the information provided by the United Kingdom authorities that the Prosecutor’s appeal was rejected on 4 June 2011 and the applicants’ acquittal was upheld;

    3. noted that there does not appear to be any prospect of a further appeal but that until 27 April 2012, the court may reopen the investigation against the applicants, should new evidence come to light;

    4. also welcomed the statement from the United Kingdom authorities that they consider the applicants are no longer at risk of the death penalty and their confirmation that when the Iraqi authorities requested legal assistance, the United Kingdom authorities informed them that credible assurances would be needed that the death penalty would not be imposed;

    5. noted that the United Kingdom authorities anticipate receiving a written copy of the relevant verdict and that steps to release the applicants are currently under way;

    6. invited the United Kingdom authorities to continue to keep the Committee fully informed of all developments on the current situation of the applicants.

    * * *

Application 74025/01

Final on 06/10/2005

HIRST (No. 2) v. the United Kingdom

Enhanced procedure

74025/01 Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber

60041/08+ Greens and M.T., judgment of 23/11/2010, final on 11/04/2011

Case description: Blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicant due to his status as a convicted offender detained in prison (Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1). Related pilot judgment of 23/11/2010 in Greens and M.T. (60041/08 and 60054/08, final on 11/04/2011) concerning the same questions.

Status of execution before the meeting: Individual Measures: In the event that the applicants are detained, their eligibility to vote will depend on the general measures adopted (see §§ 72, 93 and 94 of the judgment in Hirst).

General Measures: the United Kingdom transmitted information to the Secretariat on the 1 March 2011, see DH-DD(2011)139 indicating that it had submitted a request for a referral to the panel of Grand Chamber in the related pilot judgment, Greens and M.T.

At its 1108th meeting of March 2011, the Committee of Ministers decided to resume consideration of the questions raised by the judgment once the referral request had been considered. On 11 April 2011, the panel of the Grand Chamber refused the request for referral. As a result, the United Kingdom authorities have until 11 October 2011 to submit an Action Plan detailing a legislative proposal to execute both judgments.

    Links to relevant documents:

    Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)160

    Notes:

    In Greens and M.T, the European Court indicated at §115 that ”…the lengthy delay to date has demonstrated the need for a timetable for the introduction of proposals to amend the electoral law to be imposed. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the respondent State must introduce legislative proposals to amend section 3 of the 1983 Act and, if appropriate section 8 of the 2002 Act, within six months of the date on which the present judgment becomes final, with a view to the enactment of an electoral law to achieve compliance with the Court’s judgment in Hirst according to any time-scale determined by the Committee of Ministers”.

    As the judgment in Greens and M.T. became final on 11 April 2011, the deadline for the United Kingdom authorities to submit an Action plan is 11 October 2011.

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that in the Hirst (No. 2) judgment, final on 6 October 2005, the Court found that the general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction on the right of convicted prisoners in custody to vote, fell outside any acceptable margin of appreciation and was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

    2. recalled that at their 1108th meeting (March 2011), the Deputies noted that on 22 February 2011 the United Kingdom government had requested a referral to the Grand Chamber of the pilot judgment Greens and M.T. and decided consequently to resume consideration of the questions raised by the judgment once the referral request had been considered;

    3. noted that the request for a referral to the Grand Chamber in Greens and M.T. was refused by the panel of the Grand Chamber on 11 April 2011, and that the pilot judgment subsequently became final on that date;

    4. noted further that, according to §115 of the pilot judgment, the United Kingdom authorities have until 11 October 2011 to introduce legislative proposals with a view to the enactment of an electoral law to achieve compliance with the Court's judgments in Hirst and Greens and M.T. according to any time-scale determined by the Committee of Ministers;

    5. consequently invited the United Kingdom authorities to present an action plan to this effect without delay.

    * * *

Application 30562/04

Final on 04/12/2008

S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom

Enhanced procedure

Case description: This case concerns an unjustified interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private life due to the retention of cellular samples, fingerprints and DNA profiles taken from them in 2001, in connection with their arrest for offences for which they were ultimately not convicted (S., an 11-year-old, was acquitted of attempted robbery and Marper saw charges dropped as the complaint against him for harassment was withdrawn) (violation of Art. 8)

Status of execution before the meeting: Individual measures: The applicants' fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles have been destroyed. The retention of biometric data taken from one applicant on suspicion of having committed a subsequent criminal offence is linked to the general measures

General measures: The United Kingdom authorities submitted an Action Plan on 7 March 2011 which detailed proposals contained in the Protection of Freedoms Bill to execute the judgment (see DH-DD(2011)333). The Protection of Freedoms Bill is expected to come into force in early 2012.

    Notes: the United Kingdom authorities previously proposed a series of legislative changes to execute the judgment. At the Committee's request, bilateral consultations on the proposals were entered into by the United Kingdom authorities and the Secretariat (see DH-DD(2010)327).

    The United Kingdom authorities subsequently withdrew their proposals and in July 2010, the authorities informed the Committee that they would adopt new legislation to implement the judgment.

    On 7 March 2011, the United Kingdom authorities submitted a new action plan setting out the detail of the new legislative proposals which are based on the Scottish model and included in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is currently before Parliament. An analysis by the Secretariat of the proposals set out in the action plan is presented in information document CM/Inf/DH(2011)22rev.

    The new legislative proposals appear to reflect nearly all the factors identified by the European Court as key safeguards in relation to retention of DNA and similar personal data. However, information would be welcome on the justification for the retention periods selected and the consideration of the special treatment of children in this context.

    Information is awaited equally on measures envisaged to implement the judgment in Northern Ireland.

    Link to relevant documents

    Communication from the United Kingdom DH-DD(2010)327

    Action plan DH-DD(2011)333

    CM/Inf/DH(2011)22rev

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. recalled that the Court found that “the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard”;

    2. noted, as regards general measures, that the United Kingdom authorities have submitted an action plan which details proposals as laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is expected to be passed by Parliament in early 2012;

    3. welcomed that the new proposals foresee that all cellular samples should be retained for a maximum of six months from the date on which they were obtained and that a time-limit of three years for the retention of fingerprints and DNA profiles should be introduced, with a possible, single extension of two years upon application of the police to the national courts;

    4. nevertheless noted that evidence on how the time-limit was selected would be welcome and that in light of the comments of the European Court concerning treatment of minors (§119 of the judgment), information should also be provided on consideration of the special treatment of minors in this context;

    5. invited the authorities also to provide information on the measures to implement the judgment in Northern Ireland;

    6. decided to declassify the information memorandum (CM/Inf/DH(2011)22rev) [providing an assessment of the proposals in the Protection of Freedoms Bill];

    C. Classification of cases9

    Item 1

    Classification of new judgments which became final from 04/01/2011 to 07/04/2011

    (a) standard procedure

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that the judgments below have become final since 4 January 2011;

    2. decided to examine these cases under the standard procedure: list of cases.

    * * *

    (b) enhanced procedure10

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that the judgments below have become final since 4 January 2011;

    2. decided to examine these cases under the enhanced procedure: list of cases

    Item 1 bis

    Transitional provisions11

    Classification of new judgments which became final before the entry into force of the new working methods

    (a) standard procedure

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that the judgments below became final before the entry into force of the new working methods;

    2. decided to examine these cases under the standard procedure:

Application / Requête

Case / Affaire

Judgment of /

Arrêt du

Final on / Définitif le

Group / Groupe

POLAND / POLOGNE

41656/02

MAZGAJ

21/09/2010

21/12/2010

KLAMECKI No. 2

    * * *

    (b) enhanced procedure

    Decision

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that the judgments below became final before the entry into force of the new working methods;

    2. decided to examine these cases under the enhanced procedure:

Application / Requête

Case / Affaire

Judgment of /

Arrêt du

Final on / Définitif le

Classification indicator - group / Indicateurs de classification - groupes

MOLDOVA

29772/05

POPA

21/09/2010

21/12/2010

CORSACOV

    * * *

    Item 1 bis

    Transitional provisions12

    Classification of other cases pending before the entry into force of the new working methods

    (c) standard procedure

    Decision

    The Deputies decided to examine the following cases under the standard procedure: list of cases

    * * *

    (d) enhanced procedure

    Decision

    The Deputies decided to examine the following cases under the enhanced procedure: list of cases

    * * *

    Item 2

    List of new judgments (repetitive cases) awaiting classification

    The Deputies noted that the following judgments related to repetitive cases to be grouped with reference cases not yet classified had been transmitted by the Court under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention and that proposals for their classification would be submitted subsequently:

    List of cases.

    * * *

    Item 3

    Change of classification13

    (a) from standard to enhanced

    No cases proposed for transfer.

    * * *

    (b) from enhanced to standard

    Three cases were proposed for transfer from enhanced to standard supervision, see decisions adopted in section B,above i.e.:

    - BOUSARRA against France

    - HUTTEN-CZAPSKA against Poland and

    - KLAUS AND YURI KILADZE against Georgia

    D. Supervision of payment of the just satisfaction

    The Deputies,

    1. noted that in the following cases, no information had been supplied to the Committee of Ministers or that the information supplied concerning the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court is incomplete;

    2. invited the states concerned to supply information confirming payment of the sums in questions without delay.

    Link to the list

    E. Adoption of final resolutions

    The present document contains the updated list of cases proposed for closure.

    Decision

    The Deputies adopted the final resolutions set out in document CM/Del/Dec(2011)1115 Volume of Resolutions, in respect of the judgments listed below:

    - Cases against Armenia

    32283/04 Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan, judgment of 17/06/2008, final on 17/09/2008

    36549/03 Harutyunyan, judgment of 28/06/2007, final on 28/09/2007

    - Cases against Austria

    42780/98 I.H., judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006

    45983/99 Kaplan, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007

    24430/94 Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 31/04/02

    42967/98 Löffelmann, judgment of 12/03/2009, final on 12/06/2009

    49686/99 Gütl, judgment of 12/03/2009, final on 12/06/2009

    28648/03 Lang, judgment of 19/03/2009, final on 19/06/2009

    46389/99 Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

    26113/95 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

    58547/00 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH No. 2, judgment of 27/10/2005, final on 27/01/2006

    66298/01+ Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlags GmbH No. 3, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

    60899/00 Kobenter and Standard Verlags GmbH, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

    19710/02 Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

    13071/03 Standard Verlags GmbH, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

    76918/01 Verlagsgruppe News GmbH, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2006

    10520/02 Verlagsgruppe News GmbH No.2, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2006

    30547/03 Ferihumer, judgment of 01/02/2007, final on 01/05/2007

    5266/03 Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GesmbH, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 22/05/2007

    26606/04 Falter Zeitschriften GmbH, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 22/05/2007

    9605/03 Krone Verlag GmbH and Co KG No.5, judgment of 14/11/2008, final on 14/02/2009

    68354/01 Vereinigung Bildender Künstler, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 25/04/2007

    35841/02 Österreichischer Rundfunk, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

    29477/95 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

    10523/02 Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic, judgment of 27/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006

    62539/00 Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau, judgment of 27/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006

    54698/00 Kaya, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006

    18984/02 P.B. AND J.S, judgment of 22/07/2010, final on 22/10/2010

    - Case against Belgium

    42914/98 Capeau, judgment of 13/01/2005, final on 06/06/2005

    - Cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina

    27912/02 Suljagić, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010

    27966/06 Šobota-Gajić, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/02/2008

    - Cases against Bulgaria

    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

    - Cases against Croatia

    24661/02 Buj, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

    28261/06 Ćosić, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

    3572/06 Paulić, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

    9702/04 Gabrić, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009

    503/05 Kovač, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007

    48185/07 Prežec, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

    30431/03 Vajagić, judgment of 20/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006 and of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

    32540/05 Vrbica, judgment of 01/04/2010, final on 01/07/2010

    - Cases against Cyprus

    44730/98 Serghides and Christoforou, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03 and of 10/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

    - Case against the Czech Republic

    22186/03 Pešková, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

    - Cases against Finland

    41673/98 Bruncrona, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005 and of 25/04/2006, final on 25/07/2006

    10163/02 Johansson, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007

    20511/03 I., judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008

    2872/02 K.U., judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 02/03/2009

    - Cases against France

    54968/00 Paturel, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

    71343/01 Brasilier, judgment of 11/04/2006, final on 11/07/2006

    13327/04 Brunet-Lecomte and Sarl Lyon Mag', judgment of 20/11/2008, final on 20/02/2009

    17265/05 Brunet Lecompte and Lyon Mag, judgment of 06/05/2010, final on 06/08/2010

    12662/06 Brunet-Lecomte and Tanant, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

    35916/04 Chalabi, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

    22567/03 Desjardin, judgment of 22/11/2007, final on 22/02/2008

    1914/02 Dupuis and others, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 12/11/2007

    64016/00 Giniewski, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 01/05/2006

    34050/05 Haguenauer, judgment of 22/04/2010, final on 22/07/2010

    20985/05 Orban and others, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

    41476/98 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

    35469/06 Naudo, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

    35471/06 Maloum, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

    21324/02 Plasse-Bauer, judgment of 28/02/2006, final on 28/05/2006

    68255/01+ Crochard and 6 others, judgment of 03/02/2004, final on 14/06/2004

    24846/94 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

    31501/03+ Aubert and others and 8 other cases, judgment of 9/01/2007, final on 9//04/2007

    60796/00 Cabourdin, judgment of 11/04/2006, final on 11/07/2006

    16043/03 Achache, judgment of 03/10/2006, final on 03/01/2007

    15589/05 De Franchis, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

    40191/02 Ducret, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007

    67847/01 Lecarpentier and autre, judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006

    72038/01 Saint-Adam and Millot, arrêts du 02/05/2006, final on 02/08/2006 and du 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007 (Article 41)

    66018/01 Vezon, judgment of 18/04/2006, final on 13/09/2006

    20127/03+ Arnolin and others and 24 other cases, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007

    954/05 Chiesi S.A., judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007

    12106/03 SCM Scanner de l'ouest lyonnais and others, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 21/09/2007

    39730/06 Javaugue, judgment of 11/02/2010, final on 11/05/2010

    - Cases against Georgia

    74644/01 Donadze, judgment of 07/03/2006, final on 07/06/2006

    71678/01 Gurgenidze, judgment of 17/10/2006, final on 17/01/2007

    - Cases against Germany

    13868/08 Doertoluk, decision of 28/09/2010

    58616/09 Grebing, decision of 28/09/2010

    35749/07 J.U. No. 1, decision of 28/09/2010

    - Case against Italy

    10249/03 Scoppola, judgment of 17/09/2009 – Grand Chamber

    - Cases against Poland

    28249/95 Kreuz, judgment of 19/06/01

    73547/01 Jedamski and Jedamska, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

    59444/00 Kania, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

    71731/01 Kniat, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

    23779/02 Kozłowski, judgment of 23/01/2007, final on 23/04/2007

    39199/98 Podbielski and PPU Polpure, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

    48140/99 Teltronic-Catv, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

    38399/03 Polejowski, judgment of 04/03/2008, final on 04/06/2008

    73002/01 Kijewska, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007

    20482/03 Cibicki, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

    32971/03 Palewski, judgement of 20/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

    26397/02 Kordos, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 26/08/2009

    26761/95 Płoski, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

    28586/03 Czarnowski, judgment of 20/01/2009, final on 20/04/2009, rectified on 04/06/2009

    6925/02 Szymoński, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007

    - Cases against Romania

    25669/04 Bessler, judgment of 18/05/2010, final on 18/08/2010

    19997/02 Boldea, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

    21468/03 Rache and Ozon, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

    34434/02 Folea, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009

    45890/05 Adam, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010

    4113/03 Beian No. 2, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008

    30200/03 Larco and others, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008

    37278/03 Nemeti, judgment of 01/04/2008, final on 01/07/2008

    38151/05 Rusen, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

    5355/04 S.C. Silvogrecu Com. S.R.L., judgment of 23/02/2010, final on 23/05/2010

    26061/03 Ilic, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

    10097/05 Brezeanu, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009

    17034/03 Daniel Ionel Constantin, judgment of 30/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009

    28114/95 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)2

    4411/04 Băcanu and SC “R” SA, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

    46572/99 Sabou and Pîrcălab, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004

    5945/03 Barb, judgment of 7/10/2008, final on 07/01/2009

    33348/96 Cumpănă and Mazăre, judgment of 17/12/2004 - Grand Chamber

    7893/02 Ghibuşi, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005, DH-DD(2011)280

    22738/07 Ionescu and Negoiţa, decision of 21/09/2010

    53037/99 Ionescu Virgil, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

    - Cases against Serbia

    34425/04 Stojanović, judgment of 19/05/2009, final on 19/08/2009, rectified on 18/08/2009

    38968/04 JOVANCIC, judgment of 05/10/2010

    32484/03 MILOŠEVIĆ, judgment of 18/01/2011

    - Cases against Sweden

    35179/97 Allard, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

    23883/06 Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009

    - Cases against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

    41195/02 Nikolov, judgment of 20/12/2007, final on 20/03/2008

    13898/02 Dumanovski, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 03/07/2006

    39538/03 Blage Ilievski, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 25/09/2009

    66907/01 Docevski, judgment of 01/03/2007, final on 01/06/2007

    - Cases against the United Kingdom

    1820/08 Omojudi, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010, rectified on 25/03/2010

    47486/06 Khan A.W., judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010

    58243/00 Liberty and others, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008

    25904/07 N.A., judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 06/08/2008

    APPENDICES

    Appendix 1: List of cases for which an action plan / action report has been received since the last meeting

    Appendix 2: list of cases paid

    Appendix 3: Transitional provisions: list of cases awaiting classification

    Appendix 4 List of cases awaiting the submission of a final resolution

    (old cases under former Section 6.2, before the adoption of the new working methods), as at 31/12/2010

    - Number of cases as at 31/12/2010: 590

    - Number of cases as at 07/06/2011: 401

1 This application was lodged against Italy and Albania but the European Court found no violation in respect of Italy.

2 See report of the European Commissioner for Human Rights of March 2011; the March 2010 report of the Czech School Inspectorate and consequent Opinion of the Czech Ombudsman and the statement of the European Roma Rights Centre Czech Government Flouts Court Ruling on Roma Education from 10 November 2010. See also US Department of State Human Rights Reports for the Czech Republic 2010, pages 22 and 23 http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eur/154420.htm.

3 This problem has already been highlighted in Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2008)33, § 96 which refers to judgments of the European Court.

4 Public statements concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation made on 10 July 2001 CPT/Inf(2001)15, on 10 July 2003 CPT/Inf(2003)33, on 13 March 2007 CPT/Inf(2007)17.

5 These reports are in Russian and are available to interested Delegations at the Department for the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court.

6 See for instance the Isigova and others case and the concrete questions raised by the applicants’ representatives in their submission of 9 November 2010, p. 16-14, §§ 93-96 (DH-DD(2010)587E). It would appear that the report was presented to the victim’s representative on 24 December 2010.

7 DH-DD(2010)587E, submission of 9 November 2010, transferred to the Russian authorities on 10 November 2010.

8 Except an indication in the Isigova and others case that answers to the questions posed to the Russian Federation will be given after the case file is returned to the investigative body from the Grozny Garrison Military Court where it was in relation to the examination of the applicants’ complaint.

9 As set out in paragraph 10 of document CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 final, as approved by the Deputies at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH) (item e) the Deputies decided that “the indicators for cases to be examined under the enhanced supervision procedure would be as follows:

    - judgments requiring urgent individual measures;
    - pilot judgments;
    - judgments disclosing major structural and/or complex problems as identified by the Court and/or the Committee of Ministers;
    - interstate cases.
    In addition, the Committee of Ministers may decide to examine any case under the enhanced procedure following an initiative of a member state or the Secretariat. The request may be made at any stage of the supervision procedure. Both member states and the Secretariat should be mindful of the selected indicators when requesting a case be examined under the enhanced procedure.”

10 For each of the cases listed here, the relevant indicator, as set out in footnote above, is indicated.

11 This section of the draft Annotated Agenda is required in the context of the transition to the new working methods, and will not feature in future documents of the same kind once the transitional phase is completed.

12 This section of the draft Annotated Agenda is required in the context of the transition to the new working methods, and will not feature in future documents of the same kind once the transitional phase is completed.

13 For each of the cases set out in this section, the reasons for proposing a change of classification are indicated (See paragraphs 24-26 of document CM/Inf/DH(2010)37 as reproduced in paragraph 20 of document CM/Inf/DH(2010)45 final).



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents