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 } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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 } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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 } .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 } .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 } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)63 [1]   Execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 51 cases against Turkey   Case, Application No. Date of decision Gökkan and others, application No. 43276/04 12/10/2010 Ozer, application No. 18600/05 12/10/2010 Boran Bulut, application No. 24394/05 29/06/2010 Oguz and others, application No. 29183/05 29/06/2010 Dilipak, application No. 5631/06 08/02/2010 Doğan, application No. 12265/06 01/06/2010 Gurel Turizm ve Sanayii AS, application No. 23530/06 01/06/2010 Iyi, application No. 24072/06 01/06/2010 Cuban, application No. 24587/06 14/09/2010 Akkurt and others, application No. 29731/06 01/06/2010 Yılmaz and others, application No. 34324/06 14/12/2010 Aydin, application No. 25513/07 21/09/2010 Havuc, application No. 27597/07 11/01/2011 Yılmaz and Akmese, application No. 27737/07 07/12/2010 Karatas No. 1 application No. 4372/08 07/12/2010 Arslan, application No. 22893/08 12/04/2011 Kaslıoğlu, application No. 38365/06 01/06/2010 Tarhan, application No. 39861/06 07/12/2010 Camyar, application No. 39896/06 01/06/2010 Sencan, application No. 50880/06 28/09/2010 Kayasu, application No. 4307/07 31/08/2010 Gokce, application No. 13357/07 18/01/2011 Erkan, application No. 15555/07 29/06/2010 Özkulluk and others, application No. 21400/07 14/09/2010 Kar, application No. 21412/07 01/06/2010 Cekic, application No. 35276/08 12/04/2011 Akinci Cekic, application No. 35277/08 12/04/2011 Cekic, application No. 35841/08 12/04/2011 Cekic, application No. 36566/08 12/04/2011 Ozdemir, application No. 48053/08 04/01/2011 Corlak, application No. 53699/08 12/04/2011 Yasa, application No. 1910/09 22/02/2011 Karadeniz Gozetim ve labaratuar Hizmetleri LTD. Sti., application No. 3618/09 07/12/2010 Sayar, application No. 5811/09 14/12/2010 Muftuoglu, application No. 8650/09 22/02/2011 Guner, application No. 8675/09 22/02/2011 Aksu, application No. 8680/09 22/02/2011 Is, application No. 8684/09 22/02/2011 Oktar, application No. 8691/09 22/02/2011 Tınarlıoğlu, application No. 8833/09 22/02/2011 Babuna, application No. 8837/09 22/02/2011 Abo, application No. 10738/09 14/12/2010 Aylikci, application No. 14127/09 07/12/2010 Kesik, application No. 18376/09 12/04/2011 Karsu, application No. 31088/09 07/12/2010 Aksoy, application No. 31104/09 07/12/2010 Gezener, application No. 31170/09 11/01/2011 Alır, application No. 49940/09 14/12/2010 Ekinci, application No. 3872/10 14/12/2010 Yucedag and Uzlan, application No. 12997/10 14/12/2010 Demir, application No. 14645/10 14/12/2010     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Considering that in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list;   Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the respondent State,     DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and   DECIDES to close their examination.     [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.