Uitvoering arresten Mensenrechtenhof: ministers bespreken achterstanden op 28-29 maart (en)

Strasbourg, 27.03.2006 - On 28 and 29 March 2006, the Committee of Ministers holds the second of the six special meetings foreseen in 2006 for the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Article 46 of the ECHR).

The Committee will supervise

• - 

  the payment by respondent states of just satisfaction to applicants (477 cases),
• - 

  the adoption of other individual measures granting the applicants the appropriate redress (48 cases or groups of cases) and of
• - 

  general measures preventing new similar violations (59 cases or groups of cases).

The Committee will also examine for the first time 149 new judgments of the Court and 11 draft Final Resolutions (concerning 30 cases) concluding that the respondent states have complied with their obligations under the judgments.

At this meeting, the Committee will supervise inter alia:

• - 

  The granting by respondent states of redress to the applicants for the violations found, notably:

• - 

  Italy’s and Turkey’s responses to Interim Resolutions urging them to reopen domestic proceedings or otherwise redress the situation of the applicants convicted in violation of their right to a fair trial and still serving heavy prison sentences (Dorigo v. Italy, ResDH(2005)85 and Hulki Güne? v. Turkey, ResDH(2005)113);

• - 

  Ensuring the possibility to obtain reopening of proceedings or other measures following a violation of the right to a fair trial by Belgium (case of Goktepe); Supervision of existing possibilities to that effect in Ireland (case of Heaney and McGuinness) and the UK (case of Dowsett);

• - 

  Stopping continuous violations of the applicants’ right to private life by dangerous environmental pollution in Russia (case of Fadeyeva) and Turkey (case of Ahmet Okyay & others);

• - 

  Re-establishing parents’ access to or regular relationship with their children by Germany (case of Görgülü), Italy (cases of Scozzari and Bove), Poland (case of Zawadka) and Spain (case of Iglesias Gil and A.U.I.) to remedy violations of their right to family life;

• - 

  Remedying the shortcomings in domestic investigations into abuses by police or security forces in Romania (cases of Bursuc and Anghelscu Barbu No 1), Russia (Khashiyev and 2 other cases concerning violations in Chechnya), Turkey (several cases concerning actions of security forces) and the UK (McKerr group of 6 cases concerning violations in Northern Ireland);

• - 

  The execution of the Ila?cu et al. v. Russia & Moldova judgment which found the applicants’ detention in the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” to be arbitrary and unlawful and ordered the immediate release of the applicants still in detention, following the adoption of the 3rd Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)11 on 1 March 2006.

• - 

  General measures (constitutional, legislative or other reforms, including the setting up of effective domestic remedies) to prevent new violations similar to those found in the judgments, notably:

• - 

  Further progress in the execution of the Cyprus v. Turkey judgment, inter alia with regard to the issue of missing persons, freedom of religion of Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus;

• - 

  Reforms to protect the right to liberty or to respect for family life of mentally disabled persons in the Netherlands (cases of Brand and Morsink), Slovakia (case of Tám) and the UK (Benjamin & Wilson and 3 other cases);

• - 

  Comprehensive reforms to solve the structural problems of non-execution of domestic judicial decisions in Romania, Russia and Ukraine, revealed by numerous judgments and complaints;

• - 

  Solutions to the problem of excessive length of judicial proceedings and/or setting up an effective domestic remedy in this respect in 21 countries (cases against Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK);

• - 

  Measures adopted or under way for the protection of journalists’, publishers’ or NGO members’ freedom of expression in Finland (case of Karhuvaara and Iltalehti), France (case of Société Plon), Moldova (case of Savitchi), Poland (case of Soko?owski), Romania (case of Cump?n? and Maz?re) and the UK (case of Steel and Morris).

The information submitted to the Committee and its decisions are public. Interim Resolutions adopted on important and urgent issues take effect and become public on the day of the meeting. The other decisions adopted and the annotated agenda containing information on the progress in the execution of judgments are made public few days after the meeting. These documents together with more comprehensive information on the execution of judgments by the member states are available on http://www.coe.int/t/cm/home_en.asp or http://www.coe.int/Human_rights/execution/.

Council of Europe Press Division

Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60 - Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11

pressunit@coe.int

www.coe.int/press