CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F74E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.5pt } .s2779E34E { font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.6pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s40216698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)4 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Jafarli and others against Azerbaijan     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”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Jafarli and others (36079/06) 29/07/2010 21/02/2011   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH ‑ DD(2012)132 - see below);   Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.     Action Report Jafarli and others v. Azerbaijan Application no. 36079/06     The Court held that the delay in the execution of the judgment of the Local Economic Court No. 1, dated 9 July 2002 was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction and, accordingly, the Court considered that there was no call to award them any sum on that account.   Individual measures   In the period from March to August 2006, the judgment of Local Economic Court No. 1, dated 9 July 2002, was fully executed and the total amount of AZM 319,183,067 was paid into the bank account that the Cooperative held at the Kapital Bank. This fact has been acknowledged by the Court (§ 20 of the Judgment).   General measures   The judgement has been translated and published in the “Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights” in Azerbaijani language.   It has to be noted that, among the cases concerning non-enforcement of domestic court judgments, two group of cases – group of Mirzayev cases and group of Tarverdiyev cases – are under enhanced supervision of the Committee of Ministers.   The Mirzayev group of cases relate to non-enforcement of the domestic court judgments concerning illegal occupation by ID Ps of properties owned by other persons. The difficulties in enforcement of such judgments relate to the large number of IDPs (approximately 800,000) and the absence of relevant infrastructure for their housing. The Government have already informed the Committee of Ministers about the actions undertaken in respect of these cases.   The Tarverdiyev group of cases relate to non-enforcement of domestic court judgments concerning re-instating the applicants in their jobs. Deficiency of the enforcements of these rulings is due to dissolution of the positions previously occupied by the applicants.   In sum, these groups of cases relate to systematic problems, which do not appear to exist in the present case, as it concerns the budgetary allocations to single military unit in order to execute the relevant judgment.   Accordingly, the Government ask the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of this case.     [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the improvement of domestic remedies.