Ministers’ Deputies
Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2009)1059 Section 4.3 PUBLIC rev 2 July 2009

———————————————

1059th meeting (DH), 2-4 and 5 (morning) June 2009

- Annotated Agenda1
- Decisions

Section 4.3

Public information version

——————————————

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
(INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS)

Action

For each case or group of cases, the Deputies adopted the decision presented in a ruled box.

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 254 cases against the Russian Federation

- Cases concerning security forces in the Chechen Republic
57942/00+ Khashiyev and Akayeva, judgment of 24/02/2005, final on 06/07/2005, rectified on 01/09/2005
32059/02 Akhiyadova, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008
40464/02 Akhmadova and Sadulayeva, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007
68007/01 Alikhadzhiyeva, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 30/01/2008
26064/02 Atabaya and others, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008
77626/01 Aziyevy, judgment of 20/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008
74237/01 Baysayeva, judgment of 05/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007
69481/01 Bazorkina, judgment of 27/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006
37315/03 Betayev and others, judgment of 29/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008
57953/00+ Bitiyeva and X., judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 30/01/2008
59334/00 Chitayev and Chitayev, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007
3019/04 Elmurzayev and others judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008, rectified on 27/02/2009
60272/00 Estamirov and others, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007
1755/04 Gekhayeva and others, judgment of 29/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008, rectified on 27/03/2009
58643/00 Goncharuk, judgment of 04/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008
74240/01 Goygova, judgment of 04/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008
34561/03 Ibragimov and others, judgment of 29/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008
7615/02 Imakayeva, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007
6846/02 Isayeva Khamila, judgment of 15/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008
57950/00 Isayeva, judgment of 24/02/2005, final on 06/07/2005
57947/00+ Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva, judgment of 24/02/2005, final on 06/07/2005
6844/02 Isigova and others, judgment of 26/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008, rectified on 16/03/2009
7653/02 Kaplanova, judgment of 29/04/2008, final on 01/12/2008
72118/01 Khamidov, judgment of 15/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008
5108/02 Khatsiyeva and others, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008, rectified on 06/01/2009
29361/02 Kukayev, judgment of 15/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008
69480/01 Luluyev and others, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007
68004/01 Magomadov and Magomadov, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008
58701/00 Makhauri, judgment of 04/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008
1573/02 Medov, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008
57941/00+ Musayev and others, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008
74239/01 Musayeva and others, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008
12703/02 Musayeva, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008
1839/04 Sangariyeva and others, judgment of 29/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008
57935/00 Tangiyeva, judgment of 29/11/2007, final on 07/07/2008
12712/02 Umarov Ruslan, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008
29133/03 Utsayeva and others, judgment of 29/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008, rectified on 26/03/2009
67797/01 Zubayrayev, judgment of 10/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008
CM/Inf/DH(2006)32 revised 2, CM/Inf/DH(2008)33, CM/Inf/DH(2008)33 addendum
These cases concern a number of violations of the Convention resulting from and/or relating to the Russian authorities' actions during anti-terrorist operations in Chechnya in 1999-2002 (mainly unjustified use of force by members of the security forces, disappearances, unacknowledged detentions, torture and ill-treatment, unlawful search and seizure and destruction of property), lack of effective investigations into the alleged abuses and the continuous shortcomings in domestic remedies 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.
Individual measures:
Applicants' submissions: On 04/10/2005, the applicants in the Isayeva, Khashyev and Akayeva and Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazaeva provided the Secretariat, through their representatives, with detailed submissions claiming a number of individual measures to be adopted by the authorities. On 4/06/2007 the applicants in the Bazorkina and Estamirov cases and on 25/10/2007 in the Luluyev and others and Imakayeva cases and the Chitayev and Chitayev case submitted similar observations. The applicants' submissions were transmitted for comments to the Russian authorities.
• Information provided by the Russian authorities: The Russian authorities indicated that since the setting up on 7/09/2007 of the Investigating Committee within the Prosecutor General’s Office, these investigations fall within the competence of this new authority. The Russian authorities also indicated that a special working group was created within the Investigating Committee to deal with these cases.
• Secretariat’s assessment: Notwithstanding these positive developments, in view of the need for general measures to improve investigations, this issue is largely integrated into that of general measures.
General measures: The information provided to date by the Russian authorities and outstanding issues appear in the Memoranda of the Secretariat CM/Inf/DH(2008)33 and CM/Inf/DH(2008)33 addendum. These documents are public and are available on the Committee of Ministers’ website.
In accordance with the decision adopted by the Deputies at the 1035th meeting (September 2008), two sets of bilateral consultations were organised in Moscow in February and April 2009 to discuss the issues raised in the Memorandum. These consultations were dedicated to the effectiveness of domestic investigations and to the victims’ rights throughout criminal proceedings. The Secretariat is preparing a more detailed report to be issued for the 1059th meeting.

The Deputies, having taken note of the Secretariat’s report on the consultations with the competent Russian authorities held in Moscow in February and April 2009 on the effectiveness of domestic investigations and public scrutiny,
1. welcomed the measures taken by the Investigating Committee with the Prokuratura of the Russian Federation, in particular the setting up of the Special Investigative Unit (first created as a special group of investigators), with a view to adopting the individual measures required by these judgments;
2. noted with interest the measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the prosecutors’ control and at improving the efficiency of judicial review;
3. underlined however that the efficiency of those measures would very much depend on the progress achieved by the Special Investigative Unit in dealing with concrete cases and consequently invited the authorities to regularly provide the Committee with reports on the progress made by this Unit;
4. noted with satisfaction the circular letter issued by the Deputy Prosecutor General requiring all prosecutors to give direct effect to the Convention’s requirements when supervising the lawfulness of domestic investigations and encouraged them to continue their efforts in this direction;
5. noted that Russian criminal law as interpreted by the Constitutional Court’s decisions provides for a number of victims’ rights, in particular the right to receive information pending investigation, and that effective implementation of this criminal legislation in practice remains to be demonstrated, in particular in cases here at issue;
6. noted in this respect the existence at domestic level of a remedy (Article 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure) available notably to victims whose rights would have been infringed during the investigation as well as the recent measures taken by the federal Supreme Court to ensure its effective application by all courts;
7. noted however that the effectiveness of this remedy in practice remains to be assessed and consequently invited the authorities to provide further examples of and additional clarification on its application;
8. encouraged the Russian authorities to continue bilateral consultations with the Secretariat and decided to resume consideration of these items at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH), in the light of an up-dated version of the Memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat.

- Cases concerning violations of the right to home due to industrial pollution2
55723/00 Fadeyeva, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005
53157/99+ Ledyayeva, Dobrokhotova, Zolotareva and Romashina, judgment of 26/10/2006, final on 26/03/2007
CM/Inf/DH(2007)7

      - Cases mainly concerning the quashing of final judgments through the supervisory review procedure3

CM/Inf/DH(2005)20
52854/99 Ryabykh, judgment of 24/07/03, final on 03/12/03
2993/03 Akalinskiy, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007
63973/00 Androsov, judgment of 06/10/05, final on 15/02/06
14853/03 Borshchevskiy, judgment of 21/09/2006, final on 12/02/2007
62866/00 Boychenko and Gershkovich, judgment of 28/06/2007, final on 28/09/2007
23795/02 Chebotarev, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006
30714/03 Chekushkin, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
5964/02 Chernitsyn, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 13/09/2006
30686/03 Danilchenko, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
27101/04 Dmitriyeva, judgment of 03/04/2008, final on 29/09/2008
2999/03 Dovguchits, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007
1752/02 Fedotova Irina, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007
30674/03 Gavrilenko, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
20430/04 Gladyshev and others, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008
30777/03 Grebenchenko, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
10277/05 Ignatyeva, judgment of 03/04/2008, final on 03/07/2008
11697/05 Ivanova, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008
11785/02 Klimenko, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007
30685/03 Knyazhichenko, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
75473/01 Kondrashova, judgment of 16/11/2006, final on 16/02/2007
20887/03 Kot, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007
36495/02 Kurinnyy, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008
3548/04 Luchkina, judgment of 10/04/2008, final on 10/07/2008
26338/06 Murtazin, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008
45017/04 Nekhoroshev, judgment of 10/04/2008, final on 10/07/2008
14502/04 Nelyubin, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007
44543/04 Parolov, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 30/01/2008
1861/05 Petrov Sergey, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007
7061/02 Petrov, judgment of 21/12/2006, final on 21/03/2007
4874/03 Pitelin and others, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007
24247/04 Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006
30422/03 Pshenichnyy, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 07/07/2008
69341/01 Romanov Yuriy, judgment of 25/10/05, final on 15/02/06
60974/00 Roseltrans, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005
30731/03 Septa, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
12793/00 Seregina, judgment of 30/11/2006, final on 28/02/2007
55531/00 Sitkov, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007
73203/01 Smarygin, judgment of 01/12/05, final on 01/03/06
30672/03+ Sobelin and others, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007
878/03 Stetsenko and Stetsenko, judgment of 05/10/2006, final on 05/01/2007
30671/03 Vasilyev Boris, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
66543/01 Vasilyev, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 12/04/06
8564/02 Volkov Stanislas, judgment of 15/03/2007, final on 15/06/2007
48758/99 Volkova, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005
67051/01 Zasurtsev, judgment of 27/04/2006, final on 27/07/2006
25448/06 Zvezdin, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007

      - 168 cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments

(See Appendix for the list of cases in the Timofeyev group)
CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 revised 2 and CM/Inf/DH(2006)45, CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 revised 3
Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43
All these cases concern violations of the applicants' right to effective judicial protection due to the administration's failure to comply with final judicial decisions in the applicants' favour including decisions ordering welfare payments, pension increases, disability allowance increases, etc. (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
Certain cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicants’ arguable claim for compensation for late enforcement of the domestic judgments in their favour (violations of Article 13).
Individual measures:
Information provided by the Russian authorities and additional clarifications requested:
The domestic judgments have been executed in the cases of Bogdanov, Shatunov, Korchagin, Natalya Gerasimova, Skachedubova, Denisov, Aleksandr Zhukov, Ustalov, Lesnova, Kudrina, Politov and Politova, Furman, Mizyuk, Pridatchenko, Pylnov, Lykov, Kuryanov, Sypchenko, Zakomlistova, Parfenenkov and Volokitin.
Information on individual measures is awaited in the cases of Grigoryev and Kakaurova, Glushakova No.2, Portnova and Pogulyayev.
Cases which raise particular problems with regard to individual measures:
Gerasimova case: the judgment of the Commercial Court of Samara Region of 4/09/1995 was executed in March 2006. On 26/05/2006 the applicant submitted her observations with regard to individual measures, she was in particular asking for the indexation of the amounts paid to her according to the domestic judgment. The possibility to claim indexation before courts is provided by Russian law. According to the information provided by the authorities, no such claim was lodged by the applicant.
Shvedov case: by letter of 14/06/06 No. 08-09-14/2006 the Ministry of Finance invited the applicant to submit the execution documents with a view to the enforcement of the judgment of the Rostov-on-Don Proletarskiy District Court of 15/03/1999.
According to the Russian authorities, the applicant has not yet exercised this possibility despite the Ministry of Finance’s letters (of 14/06/2006 and 08/10/2007) inviting him to submit writs of execution in view of their enforcement.
Information is awaited on the measures taken by the Ministry of Finance, defendant in the proceedings, to obtain writs of execution not least from the relevant court so as to ensure the execution of the judgments in the applicant’s favour.
Wasserman case: The prolonged partial non-enforcement of the judgment of the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi of 30/07/1999 gave rise to the second judgment of the European Court (Wasserman No.2 (21071/05)) which became final on 29/09/2008. The European Court awarded to the applicant the just satisfaction covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he sustained.
Cases of Chernyshov and 11 others, Kazmina, Vasilyeva and others cases (outstanding pension arrears in the Voronezh Region), the Russian authorities indicated that by the Federal Law No.141 of 4/11/2005 the Law On Federal Budget of 2005 was amended so as to provide the Voronezh Region with additional finding of 221,4 million roubles for the execution of domestic judgments regarding indexation of old-age pensions due to their belated payment in 1998-1999.
According to the information provided, in June 2006 the Administration of the Voronezh Region applied for additional funding for payment of pension arrears for the period starting in 2000.
The Russian authorities indicated that by a Decision No. 196-p adopted on 02/03/2007 by the local Administration, 30 millions RUR were reserved in the local budget for the payment of indexation and compensation of pensions paid with a delay. The law on the 2008 Budget of the Voronezh region also provides for 3 millions RUR for the payment of indexation of belatedly paid pensions.
In the case of Chernyshov and 11 others, the judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced in December 2005; in the Kazmina case, the judgment of 22/10/2000 was fully enforced on 28/11/2006; in the case of Zverev and others, the judgment of 4/08/2000 was enforced on 2/12/2005.
Kesyan case: As regards the enforcement of the judgment of 10/01/2002, as amended by the judgment 29/05/2003, the Russian authorities indicated that on 13/09/2006 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued due to the impossibility to locate the assets of the debtor. No further request was lodged by the applicant.

Information is awaited on the measures taken by the bailiffs’ service in order to locate the debtor’s assets.
General measures:
1) Sector-specific measures: The Russian authorities indicated that in certain cases the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered in the applicants' favour was due to the lack of specific procedures for implementing substantial rights concerned by these decisions. The Russian authorities consequently provided detailed information regarding the measures taken with a view to preventing litigation in these sectors. This information is being assessed by the Secretariat.
For instance, the Konovalov and Shpakovskiy cases concern housing certificates delivered to former members of the armed forces. The housing legislation in respect of this category of persons has changed. The Teteriny case concerns the right of retired judges to state housing. The entire procedure of granting state housing to judges has changed. The Malinovskiy and Mikryukov cases concern the right of Chernobyl workers to free housing. The appropriate procedure in this respect has been set up at the domestic level.
2) Other fora of reflection within the Council of Europe The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) has since 2005 been conducting a bilateral project with the Russian authorities with a view to examining the situation and finding adequate solutions. A report by the experts issued on 9/12/2005 (CEPEJ(2005)8) summarised the problems at the basis of non-enforcement of judicial decisions and made a number of proposals in this field. This bilateral project is continuing in 2006.
3) Applicant’s submission: On 27/01/2006, the Secretariat received, in the case of OOO Rusatommet, an applicant's submission drawing the Committee's attention to the shortcomings of the new law amending the Budgetary Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Arbitration Code and the Federal Law on Enforcement proceedings recently adopted by the Russian Parliament. The Law was intended to clarify the enforcement procedure for domestic judicial decisions at the expense of the funds of Federal Treasury. The applicant's submission was transmitted for comments to the Russian authorities on 27/01/2006.
4) Examination of these cases by the Committee of Ministers:
a. Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 revised 2): The memorandum points at a number of outstanding problems and proposes a number of avenues that the Russian authorities may consider in their ongoing search for a comprehensive resolution of this problem. The main avenues proposed are:
- Improvement of budgetary procedures and practical implementation of budget decisions;
- Ensuring effective compensation for delays (indexation, default interest, specific damages, possibility of reinforcing the obligation to pay in case of unjustified delays);
- Increased recourse to judicial remedies;
- Ensuring effective liability of civil servants for non-enforcement;
- Possible introduction of compulsory execution, including seizure of state assets;
- Possible reconsideration of the bailiffs' role and increasing their efficiency.
The latest version of the Memorandum (CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 revised 2) was declassified at the 976th meeting (October 2006).
b. Follow-up to the Memorandum-High level Round Table in Strasbourg: Given the complexity of this issue, it was decided at the 976th meeting (October 2006), to hold a high-level Round Table involving representatives of the Russian Supreme Courts, the Ministries and Federal services concerned and experts of the Council of Europe, to assess the first results of the new enforcement procedure and to establish priorities for further reforms. This Round Table was thus organised on 30-31/10/2006 in Strasbourg by the Department for the Execution of Judgments in co-operation with the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) and the Russian authorities. The thorough and constructive discussions have identified the main outstanding problems and led to a number of commonly agreed proposals for further reforms to ensure the state's effective compliance with judicial decisions. The press release and conclusions of the Round Table appear on the web site of the Execution Department (http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1057949&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE&ShowBanner=no&Target=_self) and were made available to the Deputies in CM/Inf/DH(2006)45 at the 982nd meeting.
c. Up-dated version of Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 revised 3: In a follow-up to the Round Table mentioned above, the Russian authorities have provided the answers of the competent authorities, i.e. the Supreme Courts of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Finance, the Federal Treasury, the Federal Bailiffs' Office and the General Prosecutor's Office, to the issues raised in Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2006)19 revised 2. This information gave rise to the updated version of the Memorandum issued at the 997th meeting (June 2007).

d. Multilateral Round Table in Strasbourg: On 21 and 22 June 2007 a high-level Round Table was organised in Strasbourg by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of the Execution Assistance programme, which involved representatives of the Council of Europe and the authorities of different states confronted with this issue, to discuss solutions to the structural problems of non-enforcement of domestic court decisions. The constructive exchanges between different participants led to the adoption of Conclusions in which the main problems underlying non-enforcement were identified and a range of possible solutions to be envisaged by the authorities while elaborating their action plans were proposed. These Conclusions may be found on the following web site
http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/execution/ConclusionsRoundTableRussiaJune07.doc.
The Russian authorities have recently provided information on the issues raised in the Memorandum and the Conclusions mentioned above. This information is currently being assessed by the Secretariat.
5) Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43 adopted at the 1051st meeting (March 2009): The Committee of Ministers:
- called upon the Russian authorities rapidly to translate into concrete actions the will expressed at the highest political level to combat non-enforcement and delayed enforcement of domestic judicial decisions and to set up to that end effective domestic remedies either through rapid adoption of the constitutional law mentioned above or through amendment of the existing legislation in line with the Convention’s requirements;
- urged the Russian authorities to give priority to resolving outstanding non-enforcement issues in the problem areas identified above so as rapidly to achieve concrete and visible results, thus limiting the risk of new violations of the Convention and of further applications before the Court;
- encouraged the Russian authorities to continue their efforts in the implementation of the initiated reforms so as to ensure full and timely execution of domestic courts decisions, in particular through:

    - ensuring better coordination between different authorities responsible for the execution of domestic judicial decisions so as to avoid the risk that claimants are caught in a vicious circle in which different authorities send them back and forth;
    - further improving the rules governing all execution procedures, including appropriate role for bailiffs and judicial review;

    - ensuring the existence of appropriate general regulations and procedures at federal and local level for the implementation of the authorities’ financial obligations;
    - further developing recourse to different remedies already provided by Russian legislation so as to ensure their implementation in case of non-enforcement or belated enforcement of judicial decisions with sufficient certainty as required by the Convention;

    - strengthening state liability for non-execution as well as the individual responsibility (disciplinary, administrative and criminal where appropriate) of civil servants.

6) Publication and dissemination: Almost all judgments in this group of cases are regularly published and disseminated to all competent authorities, i.e. to all territorial departments of the Federal Bailiff Service, of the Pension Fund, of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, of the General Prosecutor’s Office, of the Federal Treasury, together with circular letters and appropriate instructions with a view to preventing new similar violations.

The Deputies,
1. took note of the information provided on the measures taken following the adoption of Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43 and in particular those aimed at setting up a domestic remedy in cases of non-execution or delayed execution of domestic judicial decisions;
2. invited the Russian authorities to give priority to these measures in order to ensure timely compliance with the pilot judgment recently delivered by the Court in the case of Burdov No. 2 (judgment of 15 January 2009, final on 4 May 2009);
3. decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1065th meeting (September 2009) to supervise the progress achieved in the implementation of the general measures, both remedial and preventive, which are in particular required by the pilot judgment mentioned above.

- 6 cases against Turkey

25781/94 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

      CM/Inf/DH(2008)6, CM/Inf/DH(2007)10/1rev, CM/Inf/DH(2007)10/3rev, CM/Inf/DH(2007)10/6, CM/Inf/DH(2008)6/5

Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)44 and CM/ResDH(2007)25
The case relates to the situation that has existed in northern Cyprus since the conduct of military operations there by Turkey in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. The European Court held that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey's responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights. In its judgment, it held that there had been 14 violations of the Convention, grouped by the Committee of Ministers into four categories:
- the question of missing persons,
- the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus,
- the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus,
- the question of the homes and property of displaced persons.
Since then, the different categories have been addressed at several times and the delegation of Turkey and other delegations have provided information which has been examined by the Committee of Ministers (for further details of the examination of this case by the Committee of Ministers, see document CM/Inf/DH(2008)6).
A Turkish translation of the judgment was published in the legal journal Yargı Mevzuatı Bülteni of 01/07/2003.
Following the measures adopted by the authorities of the respondent state with a view to complying with the present judgment, the Committee of Ministers decided to close the examination of the issues concerning the military courts, as well as those relating to the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus, as regards the secondary education, the censorship of schoolbooks and the freedom of religion (for further details see interim resolutions ResDH(2005)44 and CM/ResDH(2007)25, as well as CM/Inf/DH(2005)6/4 and CM/Inf/DH(2007)10/3rev2).

For the present meeting, the Committee of Ministers decided to examine the questions of missing persons, of the property rights of enclaved persons and of the property rights of displaced persons (see decision adopted at the 1051st meeting, March 2009).

1) Question of missing persons (see CM/Inf/DH(2007)10/1rev)
The main outstanding matters are set out below (for more detail see the public notes for the 1013th meeting, December 2007)
The delegation of Turkey has always underlined the importance of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP), stressing the efforts of Turkey to contribute to the work of this committee.
The CMP was reactivated in 2004 and has met regularly since then. The CMP launched its Exhumation and Identification Programme in August 2006. Since this programme was launched, the remains of 530 missing persons from both sides have been exhumed and transferred in the CMP anthropological laboratory. DNA analyses are carried out by a bi-communal team of the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics. Up to 01/05/2009, the remains of 136 persons have been identified and returned to their relatives (see the CMP activity report on www.cmp-cyprus.org). The first funerals took place in July 2007. In the meantime, the exhumation activities are pursued both in the northern and in the southern parts of Cyprus. The Turkish authorities stated that the families of missing persons might obtain certain information on the occasion of the return of their relative’s remains (in particular where the body had been found, any signs of trauma on the remains, etc.) Furthermore, anthropological and DNA reports are given to the families (letter of the Turkish authorities of 28/02/08). The anthropological report contains information in particular on the place where the remains were found. A special information unit for the families functions since 2004, within the Office of the Turkish Cypriot Member of the CMP. The CMP’s activities are financed by donations from Turkey, Cyprus, the European Commission and from a number of states.
The Committee has reiterated several times its evident interest in the work by the CMP and underlined the importance of preserving data and material items obtained within the framework of the Exhumation and Identification Programme. It has also reaffirmed the need for the Turkish authorities to take additional measures so that the effective investigations required by the judgment could take place (see in particular the decisions adopted since the 1035th meeting, September 2008).

• During the latest examination of the case (1051st meeting, March 2009) the Committee had an exchange of views with the three members of the CMP on different issues relating to the execution of their mandate. At the conclusion of this exchange of views, while reaffirming that the execution of the judgment requires effective investigations, the Committee noted that these should not jeopardise the CMP’s mission. The Committee considered that the sequence of the measures to be taken within the framework of the effective investigations and carrying out of the work of the CMP should take into consideration two essential aims – allow the CMP to carry out its current work under the best possible conditions and without delay, and carry out the effective investigations required by the judgment. The Committee underlined the urgent need for the Turkish authorities, in any event, to take concrete measures having in mind the effective investigations required by the judgment, in particular relating to the CMP’s access to all relevant information and places. It reiterated, once again, the importance of preserving all the information obtained during the Programme of Exhumation and Identification.
2) Specific questions concerning the property rights of the Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus (see CM/Inf/DH(2007)10/6)
- As regards the cases of definitive departure from the north of Greek Cypriots, the Turkish authorities indicated that a new decision of the “Council of Ministers of the TRNC”, was adopted in February 2008 on the basis of the “Housing, Land distribution and Special Property Law, No. 41/77”. According to the Turkish authorities, under this decision Greek Cypriots who reside in Karpas would continue to enjoy their property after their departure from the “TRNC” as long as they continue to maintain minimal contacts with their property or/and ties with the Karpas society. It seems that permanent departure from the “TRCN” is defined according to the transfer of permanent residence from the north to the southern part of Cyprus. Several criteria are taken into account to establish intent to transfer permanent residence, such as workplace, family relations, participation in public life, financial investments, home, as well as other similar indicators (see letter b) of this decision. The Turkish authorities indicated that the requirement to keep minimal contacts is based on the necessity to ensure that the region of Karpas is not depopulated. In case that such contacts are not maintained, Greek-Cypriot residents of Karpas who had left the north will have the possibility to transfer their property to persons of their choice, providing that they start the transfer procedure within a time limit of one year from their departure from the north. Furthermore, persons definitively departing from the north would have a new possibility at present - that of applying to the “Immovable Property Commission” (established on the basis of the “Law 67/2005 on the immovable property”) in order to obtain an evaluation of their properties, with a view to receiving compensation or an exchange of property.
- As regards the inheritance rights of persons living in the south in respect of property in the north of deceased Greek Cypriots, the Turkish authorities indicated that at present such rights may be exercised without any restriction. The obligation for the heirs to start the procedure for administration of their estate situated in the north within a time limit of a year from the date of the death of their relative has been abolished. According to the new decision of the “Council of Ministers of the TRNC” of February 2008 quoted above, the inheritance rights of these persons are subjected to the regulation applicable, according to the very terms of the decision, to the “citizens of the TRNC”.
Once administration of the estate has been completed, the heirs can enjoy their property on the same terms as those who are resident in Karpas and continue to maintain minimal contact with their properties and/or links with the Karpas community. The heirs can also directly lodge an application with the “Immovable Property Commission”, with a view to obtaining compensation or an exchange of property. According to the Turkish authorities, there is no time limit for such applications to the “Commission”. They have also indicated that this “Commission” has delivered already five decisions relating to such situations (decisions Nos. 2/2006, 3/2006, 4/2006, 7/2006 and 25/2006).
Assessment: The last time this question was examined (1043rd meeting, December 2008) the Committee noted with satisfaction that, according to the Turkish authorities’ explanations, restrictions on the property rights of Greek Cypriots definitively leaving the northern part of Cyprus had been relaxed, as had those affecting inheritance rights of those living in the southern part in respect of property in the northern part belonging to deceased Greek Cypriots.
The Committee also noted that the relevant regulations and the practice regarding their implementation called for a degree of clarification and decided to resume consideration of this question at their 1059th meeting (June 2009) in the light of the information received and additional information still to be provided by the Turkish authorities, as well as an updated version of the information document to be prepared by the secretariat. The Cypriot authorities submitted a memorandum on this issue on 08/04/2009.

3) Issues concerning the home and property of displaced persons (see CM/Inf/DH(2008)6/5)
- With regard to measures to put an end to continuing violations found by the European Court:
Following the judgment of 22/12/2005 in the Xenides-Arestis case, an “Immovable Property Commission” (IPC) was set up under “Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property”. In its judgment in application of Article 41 in the Xenides-Arestis case, the Court found that “the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, has taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and the judgment on the merits of 22 December 2005”.
However, the Court also pointed out that “the parties failed to reach an agreement on the issue of just satisfaction where, like in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (…) it would have been possible for the Court to address all the relevant issues of the effectiveness of this remedy in detail”. The Committee took note of this finding and invited the Turkish authorities regularly to provide all additional information on the functioning of the new compensation and restitution mechanism set up in the north of Cyprus, as well as on the concrete results achieved in this context.
According to the latest information available, up to 17/03/2009, the total number of requests addressed to the “IPC” had reached 383. In 267 cases, the applicants had asked for monetary compensation to the value of their property, and in 14 cases an exchange of property. The “IPC” has concluded 56 friendly settlements (in three cases they stipulate the restitution of the property at issue, in one case restitution “once the Cyprus problem has been solved”, in 50 cases compensation in the amount of the current value of the property and in 2 cases the exchange of property). The Turkish authorities underlined that in one case the “IPC” reached a decision setting the value of the property concerned in the absence of a friendly settlement and the interested person did not appeal this decision. The applicant concerned finally concluded a friendly settlement with the IPC on the basis of its decision. The “TRNC Parliament” extended the deadline for seising the IPC until 22/12/2009.
• The Committee noted with interest the recent information submitted by the Turkish authorities and invited them to supplement it with certain clarifications requested by delegations.
- With regard to the need for protective measures:
In February 2006 (955th meeting) the Cypriot authorities expressed their concern at the fact that displaced persons’ property was being affected either by transfers of title or by construction work.
The Committee has regularly, since the 966th meeting (June 2006) asked for detailed and concrete information on changes and transfers of property at issue in the judgment and on the measures taken or envisaged regarding this situation (see also the Interim Resolution adopted in April 2007, CM/Res(2007)25). In December 2007 (1013th meeting), the Committee observed that the information provided by the Turkish authorities still did not answer its questions and instructed the Secretariat to update the information document on this subject – CM/Inf/DH(2006)6/5 revised so as to clarify the relevant questions with a view to full execution of the judgment.
In March 2008 (1020th meeting), the Committee took note of the questions raised in the information document updated by the Secretariat (CM/Inf/DH(2008)6/5) and invited the Turkish authorities to reply. The questions raised concern in particular:

    - the different types of title deeds existing in the northern part of Cyprus;
    - the real estate projects or the transfers of property as regards property “belonging to the state”;
    - the conditions for attribution of new deeds to displaced Turkish-Cypriot refugees;
    - the procedure for granting of planning permissions concerning property concerned by the “Law on Restitution and Compensation”.

The purpose of these questions is to allow the identification of concrete measures aimed at ensuring that awaiting the evaluation of the new restitution and compensation mechanism, the possibilities offered by this mechanism, and in particular the possibility of restitution, are preserved. It should be noted in this respect that the mechanism proposed by the Turkish authorities foresees the possibility for immediate restitution in the cases where the properties concerned “have been transferred to the state” (apart from certain exceptions).
In addition, restitution “after the settlement of the Cypriot problem” does not appear feasible in the following cases:

    - if improvements have been made to these properties which exceed the value of the properties at the date when they are considered to be abandoned;
    - if projects envisaging improvements of such nature have been approved;
    - if the properties at issue have been acquired by Turkish-Cypriot refugees.

At the most recent examinations of this issue (September and December 2008 and March 2009), the Committee noted with regret the lack of response in respect of the above issues and urged the Turkish authorities to respond on them without further delay.
Information is awaited in response to these issues.
- With regard to the demolition since April 2007 of several houses situated in the Karpas region - belonging to Greek Cypriots - mentioned by the Cypriot authorities (letters of 31/05/2007, 04/06/2007 and 04/07/2007):
The Turkish authorities indicated that these measures are aimed at ensuring public security as the houses in question are abandoned and represent a danger for the population. The Turkish authorities provided copies of certain provisions of the “Streets and Buildings Law of 1959” regulating the demolition of dangerous buildings. According to the most important provisions, except in case of urgency, before demolishing buildings deemed to be dangerous, the authorities have the obligation to notify their decision to the owners of the buildings concerned and to indicate to them measures aimed at repairing their property, if appropriate. If the owners do not comply with the indicated measures, the authorities may repair or demolish the building concerned. The modalities of notification are regulated by these provisions. The Turkish authorities specified that no case of demolition concerns persons having definitely left Karpas after February 1975 (see DD(2008)520). They indicated that properties abandoned before that date are at stake here or, in few cases, properties belonging to current residents of Karpas. In the case of property abandoned before 1975, the Turkish authorities indicated that interested parties might seise the “Immovable Properties Commission” and that demolition of a property did not affect the available remedies: restitution, exchange or compensation.
Assessment: as regards this issue, the only aspect which seems to fall within the scope of the judgment concerns the property of displaced persons. The European Court did not in fact find a violation of the Convention concerning the property rights of persons residing in Karpas. Concerning the demolition, since April 2007, of houses belonging to displaced persons, it would be useful to receive details of the regulations in force and of the means of appeal available to owners to oppose decisions to demolish their property and, if appropriate, to obtain compensation.

The Deputies
Concerning the question of missing persons:
1. noted with interest the information provided by the Turkish authorities on progress of the work of the CMP and reaffirmed the importance of this work;
2. recalled the decision adopted by the Committee at their last examination of the case, according to which the sequence of measures to be taken in the framework of the effective investigations required by the judgment and the continuing work of the CMP should take into consideration both the obligation of the respondent state to conduct such investigations and the necessity for the CMP to carry out its work under the best conditions and as speedily as possible;
3. reiterated in this context the urgency for the Turkish authorities to take concrete measures, having in mind the effective investigations required by the judgment, in particular regarding the CMP’s access to all relevant information and places;
4. noted with interest in this regard the declaration of the Turkish authorities that they are ready to consider any request from the CMP relating to access to information and places relevant for its work;
5. in the same context, reiterated the importance of preserving all the information obtained during the Programme of Exhumation and Identification carried out by the CMP;
6. invited the Turkish authorities to keep the Committee informed of any developments on this question and decided to resume consideration of this question at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH);
Concerning the property rights of enclaved persons
7. recalled that at their last examination of this question, the Committee noted with satisfaction the explanations of the Turkish authorities that the limitations on these property rights had been restricted but considered that the relevant regulation and practice still required further clarification;
8. recalled in this regard that additional information was recently provided on this question by the Turkish authorities and by the Cypriot authorities and that further clarification was also provided during the meeting;
9. decided to resume the consideration of this question at their 1065th meeting (September 2009) (DH) in light of an information document to be updated by the Secretariat;
Concerning the property rights of displaced persons
10. noted with interest the information provided by the Turkish authorities during the meeting on the operation of the “Immovable Property Commission” established in the northern part of Cyprus and invited the authorities to provide this information in writing;
11. underlined that the European Court is currently seised of the question of the effectiveness of the mechanism of restitution, exchange and compensation established in the northern part of Cyprus and considered that the Court’s conclusions on this point might be decisive for the examination of this question; decided in consequence to resume examination of this question once the Court has pronounced itself on the matter;
12. considered that in the meantime it is important that all possibilities of settlement offered by the mechanism, notably on restitution of property, are preserved (protective measures);

13. noted, in this context, the explanations provided by the Turkish authorities during the meeting that the mechanism foresees the guarantees necessary to preserve all the possibilities mentioned above; considered therefore that this question merits in depth consideration and invited the Turkish authorities to provide detailed written information on this subject in the context of the relevance and the importance of the questions raised in document CM/Inf/DH(2008)6/5 which will be further addressed at the September meeting;
14. noted, finally, that the regulation which applies to the demolition of constructions sited in the Karpas region belonging to displaced persons requires clarification, in particular on any remedy available to property owners; invited the Turkish authorities to provide all relevant information in this respect;
15. decided to resume consideration of the issues of protective measures and of demolition of buildings sited in the Karpas region at their 1065th meeting (September 2009) (DH).

46347/99 Xenides-Arestis, judgments of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006 and of 07/12/2006, final on 23/05/2007
CM/Inf/DH(2007)19
Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)99
The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home (situated in Famagusta) (continuing violation of Article 8) due to the denial since 1974 of access to her property situated in the northern part of Cyprus and consequent loss of control thereof (continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
The European Court found that the violation of the applicant's rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 1 Protocol No. 1 originates in a widespread problem affecting large numbers of people and makes reference to the large number of similar cases currently pending before it. The Court therefore considered “that the respondent State must introduce a remedy, which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgment in relation to the present applicant as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before the Court, in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 and in line with its admissibility decision of 14 March 2005.” The Court further stated that such a remedy should be available within three months from the date on which the present judgment would be delivered, that is 22/03/2006, and that redress should occur three months thereafter, that is 22/06/2006.
Individual measures:
1) Just satisfaction: In its judgment on the application of Article 41 of 07/12/2006, the European Court awarded the applicant 800 000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, 50 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 35 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses. The time-limit for the payment of these amounts expired on 23/08/2007. The applicant's representative complained about the delay in the payment of these sums.
The Committee urged Turkey to pay these amounts without further delay (see the decisions adopted since the 1007th meeting, October 2007). At their 1043rd meeting (December 2008) the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)99 in which they strongly insisted that Turkey pay the sums awarded in respect of just satisfaction in the Court's judgment of 07/12/2006, as well as the default interest due.
2) Other measures: the Turkish authorities expressed the view that the sum awarded by the European Court in respect of the pecuniary damage (mentioned above) included the value of the property at issue, as its amount corresponds to that offered by the “Immovable Property Commission” for the value of the property and for the damage suffered on account of the loss of use of that property.
At the 1043rd meeting (December 2008), the Committee recalled that the issue regarding what precisely was covered by the amount awarded in respect of pecuniary damage in the judgment of 07/12/2006 was clarified by the European Court's judgment in the case of Demades against Turkey of 22/04/2008 (Section 4.3), which became final on 01/12/2008. In this judgment the European Court reiterated its finding in the cases of Loizidou, Cyprus against Turkey and Xenides-Arestis that displaced Greek Cypriots cannot be deemed to have lost title to their property and that the compensation to be awarded by the Court in such cases is confined to losses emanating from the denial of access and loss of control, use and enjoyment of this property (§24 of the judgment).
• The Committee noted with regret that the Turkish authorities had not responded to the interim resolution adopted in December 2008 concerning the payment of the just satisfaction. It again urged the Turkish authorities to comply with their obligation to pay the sums awarded without further delay. Moreover, the Committee invited the Turkish authorities to provide information on the measures they envisage in addition to the payment of the just satisfaction to remedy the consequences of the continuing violation of the applicant’s property rights and right to respect for her home (see the decision adopted at the 1051st meeting, March 2009).

General measures:
Information provided by the Turkish authorities: Following the judgment of 22/12/2005, an Immovable Property Commission was established on the basis of “Law 67/2005 on immovable property”. The Turkish authorities indicated in this respect that the constitutional challenges to this law had been rejected by the courts.
In June 2007 (997th meeting), the Deputies took note of the finding of the European Court in its judgment on the application of Article 41 of 07/12/2006, according to which “the new compensation and restitution mechanism, in principle, has taken care of the requirements of the decision of the Court on admissibility of 14 March 2005 and the judgment on the merits of 22 December 2005”. They took also note of the fact that the Court pointed out “that the parties failed to reach an agreement on the issue of just satisfaction where, like in the case of Broniowski v. Poland (…), it would have been possible for the Court to address all the relevant issues of the effectiveness of this remedy in detail”. In October 2007 (1007th meeting), the Committee of Ministers noted the information provided by the Turkish authorities on the functioning of the “Immovable Property Commission” established in the north of Cyprus and invited the authorities to continue to keep them informed on this subject (for further detail on the functioning of the “Immovable Property Commission” see the case of Cyprus against Turkey above).

The Deputies
1. deplored that their Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)99 concerning the payment of the sums awarded for just satisfaction by the judgment of the European Court of 7th December 2006 remains unanswered;
2. strongly insisted the Turkish authorities comply with their obligation to pay these sums without further delay, including the default interest due;
3. decided to resume the examination of this case at their 1065th meeting (September 2009) (DH), in particular to decide on action to be taken in the absence of information on the payment of the aforementioned just satisfaction.

15318/89 Loizidou, judgment of 18/12/96 (merits), Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105, ResDH(2001)80
In her application introduced in 1989 with the European Commission of Human Rights, the applicant complained of her arrest and detention by Turkish military forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus, or by forces acting under their authority (Articles 3, 8 and 5 of the Convention), and, of the fact that Turkish authorities had prevented her from having access to and from enjoying certain properties she owned on the northern part of the island (Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
The Commission's report was transmitted to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers on 26/08/93. On 09/11/93, the Government of Cyprus referred the part of the case relating to the applicant's enjoyment of her property rights to the European Court of Human Rights.
In a judgment of 23/03/95 the Court rejected the preliminary objections against its jurisdiction which had been presented by Turkey. The Court found, however, that its jurisdiction extended only to the applicant's allegations of a continuing violation of her property rights subsequent to 22/01/90 (date of Turkey's recognition of the Court's jurisdiction).
In its judgment on the merits, dated 18/12/96, the Court found no violation of Article 8 but a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the continued denial of access to the applicant's property and consequent loss of control thereof. In a judgment of 28/07/98, the Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the damages she had suffered on account of that violation.
Individual measures:
1) Just satisfaction: The Deputies decided to focus in a first stage on the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court to Mrs. Loizidou. In the context of the supervision of the execution of the judgment of 28/07/98, two letters were sent by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to his Turkish counterpart, on 22/06/99 and 04/04/00, and three Interim Resolutions were adopted by the Committee (Resolutions DH(99)680 of 06/10/99, DH(2000)105 of 12/07/2000 and ResDH(2001)80 of 26/06/2001).
The sums awarded by the Court were finally paid on 02/12/2003 and a Resolution was adopted on the same day closing the Committee's supervision of the execution of the Court's judgment on just satisfaction (ResDH(2003)190).
2) Other measures: as to the merits of the case, the Deputies decided, in their Resolution ResDH(2003)91 of 02/12/2003, to “resume consideration of the execution of the judgment of 18/12/96 in due time, taking into consideration proposals to do so at the end of 2005”.
The examination of the case was resumed in November 2005 and has been pursued regularly since then.

- In April 2007, the Deputies took note of the information provided by the Turkish authorities concerning the present situation of the applicant's property, as well as concerning the examination ex proprio motu of her case by the “Immovable Property Commission”. The Deputies recalled on several occasions the exceptional character of the individual measures in this case, having regard to the fact that their adoption has been awaited since the judgment of the European Court on the merits delivered in 1996. They urged the Turkish authorities to adopt without further delay the measures necessary to remedy the consequences of the continuing violation of the applicant's property rights (see the decisions adopted at the 997th and 1007th meetings, June and October 2007 respectively).
- In November 2007, the applicant received an offer from the Turkish authorities as regards her property located in the northern part of Cyprus. Following the examination of her case by the “Immovable Property Commission”, the applicant was offered pecuniary compensation for the current value of her property, as well as for the loss of use concerning that property from 1998 to 2006. It is indicated that the restitution of the property could not be envisaged since it was allocated to refugees from the southern part of Cyprus and its value had undergone substantial improvement. On the contrary, the applicant was offered the possibility to receive in exchange property situated in the southern part of Cyprus.
The applicant made comments on this offer, criticising the fact that, in her opinion, the Turkish authorities had not respected her wish to keep the property in question and on the calculation of the compensation. She asked the Turkish authorities to revise their offer in order fully to secure the execution of the judgment of 18/12/1996.
- In February 2008, the Turkish authorities replied to the applicant’s comments. They specified that the restitution of the applicant’s property could not be envisaged since the requirements of the “Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property” were not met. More particularly, an immediate restitution could not take place, considering that the property in question was not allocated to "the state" but to refugees from the south. Furthermore, a restitution “after the solution of the Cypriot problem” could not be envisaged either due to the fact that the improvement of the property exceeded the value of the property in 1974. The Turkish authorities also indicated that, concerning the calculation of the compensation offered to the applicant, they took into account the market value of the property, as well as the loss of use. As regards the loss of use, the authorities took into account the amounts claimed by the applicant before the European Court concerning the period 1990-1998. In response to the comments of the Turkish authorities, the applicant noted in particular that she rejects the reference to “Law No. 67/2005” as a remedy approved by the European Court and that she requests the restitution of her immovable property and not an exchange of property. The applicant also observed that the methodology of calculation of the compensation offered to her had not taken into account the judgments of the European Court in this case and that she failed to understand why the plots indicated in the letter of the Turkish authorities as empty and not improved could not be restored (letter of 28/05/2008).
In December 2008, the Turkish authorities provided further clarification of the offer made and the Committee noted these with interest. The Committee also noted that a first reading of the new information showed that the offer made to the applicant was based on “Law No. 67/2005”. It recalled that this law set up a compensation and restitution mechanism in the northern part of Cyprus following the judgment of the European Court of 22 December 2005 in the case of Xenides-Arestis and that not all the relevant issues of the effectiveness of this mechanism had been addressed in detail by the European Court so far.
General measures: these measures are examined in the framework of the cases Cyprus against Turkey and Xenides-Arestis against Turkey (Section 4.3).

The Deputies
1. recalled that the Committee of Ministers invited the Turkish authorities to make an offer to the applicant to comply with their obligation to put an end to the violation found and remedy its consequences, and that in reply, the Turkish authorities made an offer based on “Law No. 67/2005 on the compensation, exchange or restitution of immovable property”;
2. recalled that following the judgment of the European Court of 22 December 2005 in the case Xenides-Arestis, this law established a compensation, exchange and restitution mechanism in the northern part of Cyprus;
3. underlined that the European Court is currently seised of the question of the effectiveness of this mechanism and considered that the Court’s conclusions on this point might be decisive for the execution of this judgment ;
4. decided in consequence to resume consideration of this case at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).

      - Case concerning interference in property rights and respect for home (properties in the northern part of Cyprus)

16163/90 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd. and Michael Tymvios, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003 and of 22/04/2008 – Friendly settlement
This case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of certain properties located in the northern part of Cyprus, insofar as they have been denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of them since 1988, the date on which the applicant company was given the property concerned (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In 1996 the second applicant became the exclusive owner of the property.
Individual measures: A friendly settlement has been agreed between the parties in which the applicant has been awarded one million United States dollars for any pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. The agreement also provides for an exchange of property “insofar as the exchange decision may be executed within the control and power of the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus””
• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: the amount agreed has been transferred to the applicant’s bank account within the time-limit foreseen by the friendly settlement. By letter of 03/09/2008 the Turkish authorities indicated that in August 2008, Mr Tymvios transferred to the “TRNC” 62 properties belonging to him.
• Information provided by Mr Tymvios and by his representative: in August 2008, the applicant forwarded all documents necessary for the exchange of property to the Director of the District Land Registry Office of Larnaka. The Land Registry Office replied to him that the issue had been submitted to the Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus for legal advice before it is considered at their level. As of 11/09/2008 the applicant had not received any further information on this subject (see DD(2008)516 of 16/09/2008). The applicant complained of this situation to the Committee of Ministers (see DD(2008)496 of 10/09/2008).
• The Committee recalled that a friendly settlement had been agreed between the applicant and the respondent state, endorsed by the European Court, which provides for the payment of an amount of money, as well as for an exchange of property “insofar as the exchange decision may be executed within the control and power of the authorities of the 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'”. The Committee noted that the respondent state had taken the measures in its power to comply with this friendly settlement and decided to close the examination of the individual measures in this case (decision adopted at the 1043rd meeting, December 2008).
General measures: These measures are being examined in the framework of the cases Cyprus against Turkey and Xenides-Arestis against Turkey (Section 4.3).

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of the general measures following from the judgment on the merits of 31/07/2003 at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (1-3 and 4 (morning) December 2009) (DH).

- Case concerning interference in property rights and respect for home (properties in the northern part of Cyprus)
16219/90 Demades, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003 and of 22/04/2008, final on 01/12/2008
This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property located in the Northern part of Cyprus, insofar as he has been denied access to them and control, use and enjoyment of them since 1974 (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
The European Court also noted that the applicant’s house was fully furnished and equipped and that he and his family had made regular use of it; it therefore concluded that the fact that the applicant had been unable to use that property constituted an interference in his right to respect for his home (violation of Article 8).
Individual measures: In its judgment on the application of Article 41 of 22/04/2008, the European Court reiterated its finding in the cases of Loizidou (15318/89), Cyprus against Turkey (25781/94) and Xenides-Arestis (46347/99), to the effect that displaced Greek Cypriots cannot be deemed to have lost title to their property and that the compensation to be awarded by the Court in such cases is confined to losses emanating from the denial of access and loss of control, use and enjoyment of this property (§24 of the judgment). The European Court awarded the applicant 785 000 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, 45 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 5 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses.
Information is awaited on measures envisaged by the Turkish authorities to remedy the consequences of the continuing violation of the applicant's property rights and right to respect for his home.

General measures: These measures are being examined in the framework of the cases Cyprus against Turkey and Xenides-Arestis against Turkey (Section 4.3).

The Deputies decided to resume examination of this item at the latest at their 1072nd meeting (1-3 and 4 (morning) December 2009) (DH), in the light of information to be provided by the Turkish authorities on the measures they envisage to remedy the consequences of the continued violation of the right to property and right to respect for the applicant’s home.

28490/95 Hulki Güneş, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03
Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)113, CM/ResDH(2007)26 and CM/ResDH(2007)150
72000/01 Göçmen, judgment of 17/10/2006, final on 17/01/2007
46661/99 Söylemez, judgment of 21/09/2006, final on 21/12/2006
CM/INF/DH(2009)5rev9

A. INTRODUCTION

1. The case of Hulki Güneş concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court on account of the presence of a military judge (violation of Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), and the unfairness of the proceedings before that court. As a result of the unfair proceedings, the applicant was sentenced to death (subsequently commuted to life imprisonment), mainly on the basis of statements made by gendarmes who had never appeared before the court as well as on the applicant’s confessions obtained while he was questioned in the absence of a lawyer and under circumstances which led the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”) to find a violation of Article 3 (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3 (d)).

The case also concerns the treatment inflicted on the applicant while in police custody in 1992 which the Court found to be inhuman and degrading (violation of Article 3).

2. The cases of Sabahattin Göçmen and Mehmet Faysal Söylemez also concern the unfairness of the proceedings against the applicants. In the case of Göçmen, the applicant was sentenced in 1999 to 18 years and 9 months’ imprisonment on the basis of incriminating statements he made in the absence of a lawyer and under duress while in police custody. In the case of Söylemez the applicant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment while the proceedings were pending against the police officers for having ill-treated the applicant while in custody.

3. In view of the seriousness of the violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial, the serious doubts they cast on the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue and the gravity of the sentences imposed on the applicants, specific individual measures - namely the reopening of the impugned proceedings - to erase them as well as their consequences for the applicants are urgent.

4. According to the Turkish authorities, restitutio in integrum, as far as possible, for the applicants can only be achieved by amending the Code of Criminal Proceedings.

5. However, more than five years after the Court’s judgment in the case of Hulki Güneş and despite repeated requests from the Committee of Ministers and its Chair (see, appendices 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7) and the commitments made to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers by the Turkish authorities (see, appendices 2 and 5), no tangible information has been provided by the Turkish authorities on the measures taken to remove promptly the legal lacuna preventing the reopening of the domestic proceedings in the applicants’ cases in order to comply with the Court’s judgments.

B. EXAMINATION OF THE CASES BY THE MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

6. Given the absence of progress in the adoption of the measures required by the judgments concerned, the Deputies decided in December 2008 to examine these cases “at each regular meeting of the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies as from their first meeting in January 2009 until the Turkish authorities provide tangible information on the measures they envisage taking”.

7. At the 1046th meeting of the Deputies (21 January 2009) the Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) recalled the questions raised by the execution of the judgments in these cases, emphasising that the Hulki Günes case, the “reference case” for all three, had been pending before the Committee of Ministers for more than five years. He underlined that, from the first examination of the Hulki Günes by the Committee in the context of its role under Article 46 of the Convention, the Committee had clearly indicated the urgent individual measures needed for the defendant state to conform to its obligation to execute the judgment, namely to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) so as to remove the legal obstacle which prevents reopening of the domestic proceedings in this case – and also in those of Göcmen and Söylemez.

The Director General explained why these cases would be placed, as from the beginning of January 2009, on the agenda of every regular meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (see introduction above and appendices). In this context he recalled the intervention of the Representative of Turkey at the 1044th meeting on 10 December 2008, to the effect that, considering that the reopening of persons convicted of terrorist offences was at issue, the Turkish authorities considered that it was not an opportune time to submit a draft amendment to the CCP and that it was best to wait for more favourable conditions.

Even if the secretariat could understand the political reasons mentioned by the Turkish authorities the Director General underlined that they could not be used, either before the Committee or still less before the Court, to justify a violation or any delay or failure to execute a judgment of the Court. He concluded by stating that the aim now was to find out from the Turkish authorities what concrete measures were envisaged to execute the Court’s judgments in these cases.

8. The Representative of Turkey said that in his declaration of 10 December he had already provided all necessary explanations regarding the state of execution of these cases and the measures required. Recalling that in his authorities’ view these cases concerned terrorist offences, he asserted that they would present their proposal to amend the CPP as soon as they considered that it had some chance of success.

9. The Representative of France, noting what had already been said and the action taken to date by the Committee of Ministers, regretted that despite its repeated appeals no concrete measure had been taken. Whilst understanding the constraints of parliamentary procedure, he formed the wish that the obstacles to reopening the applicants’ proceedings might be removed as soon as possible, as a delay of five years since the leading judgment seemed rather long.

10. The Representative of Switzerland said he could understand that cases raising questions linked with terrorism posed problems. But even so, the right of everyone to a fair trial was fundamental. Accordingly, considering the action taken by the Committee of Ministers in the Hulki Günes case, he was concerned that a judgment of 2003 had not yet been executed. He suggested that it would be useful to invite the Turkish authorities to present an action plan with a precise time-frame for adopting the measures needed to execute the judgments.

11. At the 1047th meeting of the Deputies (4 February 2009), the Representative of the Czech Republic expressed regret that, five years after the judgment in the case of Hulki Güneş became final, these cases still appeared on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers.

12. The Representative of Denmark expressed concern that Turkey could still not give a timetable as to when it is planning to change its legislation to comply with the Court’s judgment. He added that governments should be able to convince their Parliaments to adopt the necessary legislation in order to ensure compliance with international obligations, especially when those governments have majority in their parliaments.

13. The Representative of Norway noted that his authorities understood that these cases raised sensitive questions. Nevertheless, he expressed concern that the case of Hulki Güneş has still not been executed for more than five years. He asked for a solution to be found so that these cases are executed.

14. The Representative of the Netherlands shared the concerns expressed by his colleagues. He noted that it appeared that the Turkish Parliament’s attitude was the reason for not executing these judgments. However, this explanation could not be accepted because a State party to the Convention has to respect with its obligations in way or the other.

15. At the 1048th meeting (11 February) the Representative of Belgium said that like those who had taken the floor on previous occasions, he considered that the obligation conferred by Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention applied to all alike. He took note of the information provided by the Turkish authorities to the effect that there could be no short-term solution, but indicated that, this being the case, the Committee should persist in its efforts to secure full execution of the judgment in the interest of the credibility of the human rights protection mechanism and of the Organisation.

16. The Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) recalled why this question, normally reserved for DH meetings, was on the agenda of regular meetings. This was because, in spite of repeated urgings, the authorities of the respondent state had failed to provide the necessary tangible information requested on the execution measures. It was important to maintain this item on the agenda to see whether the Turkish authorities would take action to execute the judgments within a reasonable time.

17. At the 1049th meeting (19 February 2009), the Representative of Germany said that his authorities deplored the fact that these judgments had still not been executed even though they dated from more than five years ago. He could not but remind the Turkish authorities of the obligation on all states under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention to execute judgments against them and urged Turkey to do everything in its power to speed up the adoption of the legislative amendment need to put an end to the violations in these cases.

18. The Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) wished simply to repeat what he had said at previous meetings and to encourage Turkey without further delay to provide information on the procedure which they intend to engage.

19. At the 1050th meeting (11 March 2009), the Representative of Denmark raised the question as to whether the Representative of Turkey could inform the Committee on the developments, if there are any, since these cases have been last examined by the Committee at the 1049th meeting.

20. In response, the Representative of Turkey recalled that the reform required to permit reopening of the cases at issue required an amendment of the Criminal Code and that this was a legislative act. The Turkish Parliament was currently in recess due to the holding of local elections on 29 March, and would not be able to take the matter up until it returns to work in April.

21. The Secretariat (Head of the Department for Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights) recalled the statement made by the Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs at the previous meeting.

22. The Chair concluded that the Committee had taken note of the information provided by the Representative of Turkey and expressed the hope that the Grand National Assembly might be in a position to take the matter up as soon as it reconvened.

23. At the 1051st meeting (17-19 March 2009) (DH), the Representative of Turkey stated that he had no new information further to those given during the last regular meeting and that after the local elections on 29 March, he would hopefully be able to give some more information.

24. The Representative of the United Kingdom stated that the United Kingdom had also to deal with terrorism and that the difficulties involved in executing judgments of this kind were understandable. The Representative nonetheless underlined that it was important that Turkey takes measures to execute these judgments and to inform the Committee of the concrete steps taken after the local elections. The Representative stated that it was relevant at this stage to ask what measures Turkey tends to take to persuade parliamentarians that amendments of the relevant laws is necessary.

25. The Representative of Norway deplored that more than 5 years after the delivery of these judgments, Turkey has still not adopted urgent individual measures to execute the judgments and urged the Turkish authorities to submit, without further delay, to the Parliament a bill proposing the necessary amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of the non favourable conditions that might exist for such amendments in the Parliament. The Representative stated that it was important that the Turkish government contributes to creating the necessary pressure on the parliamentarians so that the judgments can be executed. As the United Kingdom delegation, the Representative asked whether the Turkish authorities made the necessary efforts to persuade the parliamentarians with a view to creating more favourable conditions for the adoption of the necessary legislative measures.

26. The Representative of France stated that she taken due note of the information concerning the forthcoming elections in Turkey and their consequences for the Parliament’s work. However, given the fact that these cases had been examined for many years, she was looking forward to concrete developments immediately after the elections of 29 March. She strongly encouraged the Turkish authorities rapidly to start the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to allowing the execution of the judgments of the Court, and to inform the Committee of Ministers of this had been done as soon as possible.

27. The Representative of Sweden underlined the need for removing promptly the legal gap preventing the reopening of the domestic proceedings and, as the previous speakers, asked for concrete measures to be taken.

28. The Representative of Italy drew attention to the potential relevance of Recommendation Rec(2000)2 on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular to paragraph 14 of the explanatory memorandum concerning “mass cases” and questioned whether these cases can be consider to fall under this category in particular in respect of reopening of domestic proceedings.

29. The Representative of the Czech Republic stated these cases could not be settled by simply referring to political reasons making it impossible to execute them and that Turkey had to find a quick solution. The Representative urged Turkey to implement these judgments fully.

30. The Representative of Finland recalled that the European Court of Human Right was one of the main pillars of the Human Rights system and that it was the responsibility of every member state to implement judgments promptly and fully.

31. The Representative of Denmark asked Turkey to recommend that an action plan be presented.

32. The Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) stated first that it was necessary to define the context of the execution of these cases and in that respect it was not the execution of “mass cases” but of three individual cases: Hulki Güneş, Göçmen and Söylemez.
Secondly, the choice of the means to achieve execution, namely an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, was made by the respondent state itself.
Finally, he recalled, as already underlined in the context of regular meetings, that political objections were not admissible as a ground to oppose the execution of a judgment. The delegation of Turkey had previously underlined the difficulty of reopening cases concerning terrorism but these arguments, although perfectly understandable, could not in any way allow the non-execution of a judgment. Now another argument was raised, namely to wait for the outcome of local elections to see whether it would be eventually appropriate to seise the Parliament. Here again, this kind of political argument, although quite understandable, was not admissible to oppose the execution of a judgment. Therefore, the Secretariat fully supported the delegations which had invited the Turkish authorities to table as soon as possible before the Parliament the necessary amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

33. At the 1052nd meeting (25 March 2009), the Representative of the United Kingdom reiterated the statement made at the 1051st DH meeting.

34. At the 1053rd meeting (1 April 2009), the Representative of the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union made the following statement: ”The European Union expresses its deep concerns about the Turkish cases Hulki Güneş, Göçmen and Söylemez which remain unresolved, although the judgments were issued several years ago. The case of Hulki Güneş has still not been executed after more than five years.
When adhering to the Convention, the Contracting States undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. We reiterate our position that all judgments of the Court must be fully implemented by the parties found in violation of the Convention.

The European Union is especially concerned that the lack of implementation of the judgments continues to result in deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The European Union recalls its clear position that efforts to prevent and reduce terrorism must be executed in full conformity with the rule of law, respect for human rights and international legally binding obligations.
The European Union therefore encourages Turkey to take all appropriate measures to speed up the legislative changes which it understands are necessary to remedy the violations found by the Court.”

The candidate countries Croatia and the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, along with the European Free Trade Association countries and members of the European Economic Area Iceland and Lichtenstein, as well as Andorra align themselves with this declaration.

35. The Representative of Turkey stated that he took note of the statement made by the European Union, but took exception to the reference made to “deprivation of liberty without due process of law”. He indicated that the right to reopening of domestic proceedings would not automatically lead to a retrial, let alone a reversal of the original judgment. This was also the situation in several European Union member states with regard to the reopening of domestic proceedings following a violation found by the European Court. Therefore, the reference made to “deprivation of liberty without due process of law” prejudges the all stages of domestic proceedings.
The Representative of Turkey added that, following the nation-wide local election last Sunday, the Turkish Parliament went into session and expressed the hope that he would be able to inform the Committee of positive developments in this political issue during this work session of the Parliament.

36. The Representative of Switzerland supported the declaration made on behalf of the European Union. He stated that it was imperative to have fair proceedings in these cases. He welcomed the fact that the Turkish Parliament would deal with this issue forthwith, taking into account the judgments by the European Court, and hoped for positive results in the near future.

37. The Secretariat (Head of the Department for Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights) took note with interest of the information provided by the Representative of Turkey concerning the fact that the Parliament was in session following the very recent local elections. The Secretariat hoped that this would constitute the first step of developments making it possible rapidly to achieve concrete results for the implementation of these three judgments, in particular through tabling the required amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

38. At the 1054th meeting (16 April 2009), the Representative of France recalling the encouraging intervention made by the Permanent Representative of Turkey during the previous meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies regarding the necessary amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, expressed his concern that there has been no concrete developments in this field. While indicating that he understood the sensitivity of the issues, the Representative stressed two fundamental principles at stake here, namely the right to a fair trial and the obligation to execute the judgments of the Court. He stated that five years after the Court’s judgment in the Hulki Güneş case, whatever the difficulties are, it is high time that Turkey set a precise timetable for the adoption of the necessary measures for the execution of the cases in question. It is an issue of the credibility of the mechanism of the Convention.

39. At the 1055th meeting (22-23 April 2009), the Secretariat (Director General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs) recalled that the Committee was still awaiting concrete information on the measures envisaged by the Turkish authorities, including the time-frame, for executing these three judgments.

40. The Representative of Turkey recalled that he had promised the Committee that he would inform it as soon as possible of any development. It could be deduced from his silence that as yet there was none, but he would inform the Committee when he had something to announce.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of the measures to be taken to execute the Courts’ judgments at their 1060th meeting (10 June 2009).

- 3 cases against Ukraine

- Cases concerning lack of independence and/or impartiality of judiciary4
48553/99 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02 and judgment of 02/10/03, final on 24/03/04 (Article 41), Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)14
65518/01 Salov, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005
33949/02 Belukha, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007

- 6 cases against the United Kingdom

- Cases concerning the action of the security forces in the United Kingdom
28883/95 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01
37715/97 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01
24746/94 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01
30054/96 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01
43290/98 McShane, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02
29178/95 Finucane, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03
Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)20, CM/ResDH(2007)73 and CM/ResDH(2009)44
CM/Inf/DH(2006)4 revised 2, CM/Inf/DH(2006)4 Addendum revised 3 and CM/Inf/DH(2008)2 revised
These cases concern the death of applicants' next-of-kin during security forces operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicions of collusion of such forces.
In this respect, the Court found various combinations of the following shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating deaths giving rise to possible violations of Convention rights (violations of Article 2): lack of independence of the investigating police officers from security forces/police officers involved in the events; lack of public scrutiny and information to the victims' families concerning the reasons for decisions not to prosecute; the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which might have been disclosed; the soldiers / police officers who shot the deceased could not be required to attend the inquest as witnesses; the non-disclosure of witness statements prior to the witnesses' appearance at the inquest prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest and contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly and were not pursued with reasonable expedition.
The McShane case also concerns the finding by the Court of a failure by the respondent state to comply with its obligations under Article 34, in that the police had - albeit unsuccessfully - brought disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor who represented the applicant in national proceedings for having disclosed certain witness statements to the applicant's legal representatives before the European Court.
Measures taken so far: Information on the measures taken so far by the United Kingdom authorities and the general and individual measures closed by the Committee of Ministers can be found in the above mentioned interim resolutions, their appendixes and the Secretariat’s information documents. Information provided by the United Kingdom authorities regarding the outstanding general and individual measures since the adoption of Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)44 at the 1051st meeting (March 2009) is summarised below:

Individual measures:
1) Jordan case: At the preliminary hearing on 22/01/2009 the Coroner announced that hearings would be delayed until at least June 2009. Following that announcement, the applicant sought judicial reviews of the Coroner’s decisions in relation to the anonymity of Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) witnesses and compellability of witnesses who are outside the UK. The challenge to the Coroner’s decisions on compellability of witnesses was dismissed by the court on 5/03/2009. With regard to anonymity, the Coroner has now sought the views of the next of kin and the PSNI in relation to the procedure to be adopted for determining applications by witnesses for anonymity and screening. The deadline for responses was 24/04/2009 and a preliminary hearing may then be convened before the Coroner makes his decision on the procedure. Regarding the issue of disclosure, on 31/03/2009 the Coroner received a request from the next of kin asking that he seek certain information from the PSNI.  He is now waiting for submissions on this issue from both the PSNI and the next of kin. Once these are received, the Coroner may then convene a preliminary hearing before making his decision regarding the request. Separately, in relation to a judicial review brought by the next of kin in December 2008 seeking disclosure by the PSNI of certain documents, a further decision is pending in which the judge concerned will seek to clarify matters that have arisen in relation to his original judgment. In light of these developments no date has yet been set for the inquest.
2) Case of Kelly and Others: The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) met with representatives of four of the nine families involved on 23/03/2009. The Pat Finucane Centre and Committee for the Administration of Justice were also present. The meeting was very positive. The HET continues to pursue a number of lines of enquiry (including animated reconstruction of the scene, interviews with witnesses and examination of a linked incident) in order to move to delivery of the Review Summary Report. This may take some time to finalise. The HET continues to liaise with the families and update them on progress.
3) McKerr case: Following the preliminary hearing on 29/10/2008, the matter of the disclosure of the Stalker/Sampson papers remains under consideration.
4) Shanaghan case: The HET Review has now been completed. The HET are moving to the report-writing phase, which will take approximately two months.  Liaison with the Committee on Administration of Justice (CAJ) continues, and they are arranging a meeting between the family and the HET which will take place in the next couple of weeks.
Information is awaited on progress in these investigations. It should be recalled that in its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)44 the Committee strongly urged the United Kingdom authorities to take all necessary measures with a view to bringing to an end, without further delay, the ongoing investigations while bearing in mind the findings of the Court in these cases.  
General measures: Regarding the Police Ombudsman’s report of the five-yearly review of her powers and the response of the authorities to its content, the United Kingdom authorities reiterated that the Government’s 12-week consultation on the Police Ombudsman's 5-Year Review concluded on 5/03/2009. The government continue to consider the responses.
Information is awaited on the government’s response.

The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these cases at their 1065th meeting (15-16 September 2009) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on individuall and general general measures.

1 Those items marked with an asterisk * were added after approval of the draft Agenda (Preliminary list of items for consideration at the 1059th meeting) in accordance with the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of these cases to the 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).

3 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of these cases to the 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).

4 The Deputies decided to postpone consideration of these cases to the 1072nd meeting (December 2009) (DH).


 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents