Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)138
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Grafov against Ukraine
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 1 July 2020
at the 1380th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
4809/10
GRAFOV
18/12/2018
18/12/2018
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”;
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established on account of the failure by the domestic courts to examine the proportionality of the interference with the applicant’s property rights and the lack of compensation for the annulment of the applicant’s bona fide property rights to a shed due to the State’s error (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1);
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted to give effect to the present judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)1474);
Having noted that, in respect of individual measures, the just satisfaction awarded by the Court covered both pecuniary damage (compensation for the value of the property) and non-pecuniary damage and that no other individual measures are necessary;
Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in this judgment continues to be examined within the framework of the Maksymenko and Gearsymenko group of cases and that the closure of this case therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case as regards the individual measures and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy