Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)216
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Two cases against Turkey
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 September 2019 at the 1352nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
4728/07
ÖZCAN
10/07/2018
10/07/2018
2553/09
AVCI AND DERELİ
23/10/2018
23/10/2018
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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;
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 measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)730);
Recalling that in its Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)332 concerning the Demirel group of cases, the Committee closed the examination of other similar cases concerning, inter alia, non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion to the applicants or their representative in the context of proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the detention as well as the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention (Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5), and the excessive length of detention throughout trial (Article 5, paragraph 3);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy