CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 mars 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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(2013)50 [1] 37 cases against Turkey Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights   Case, Application No. Date of decision BELIREN, application No 3305/07 03/04/2012 CICEK, application No 37686/05 03/07/2012 YILDIZ, application No 36247/06 03/07/2012 ESATOGLU, application No 12844/07 03/07/2012 RUZGAR, application No 16848/07 03/07/2012 PAPALYARIS and MODAKI, application No 28229/07 03/07/2012 AGAR, application No 19125/08 04/09/2012 ACAR, application No 43656/10 04/09/2012 BAKAL AND OTHERS, application No 8243/08 05/06/2012 CELIKALP AND OTHERS, application No 10442/08 05/06/2012 ERTURK, application No 10473/08 05/06/2012 AKINTI, application No 27644/08 05/06/2012 DOGAN, application No 18979/09 05/06/2012 OZDEMIR, application No 26855/10 05/06/2012 KOCYIGIT AND KEKLIKOGLU, application No 26668/05 06/03/2012 VAROL, application No 34680/07 06/03/2012 DAL, application No 60429/08 06/03/2012 EREN, application No 856/09 06/03/2012 ORMEN, application No 1914/09 06/03/2012 AVRAS and Others, application No 41168/09 06/03/2012 UGURLU, application No 42290/09 06/03/2012 ATIK, application No 47782/09 06/03/2012 AY, application No 56229/11 10/05/2012 RENCBER & Others, application No 30252/06 10/07/2012 AKSOY, application No 2163/09 10/07/2012 KOSAN AND HAZAR, application No 25703/09 10/07/2012 PARLAK, application No 55271/09 10/07/2012 OCAL, application No 23422/10 10/07/2012 YILDIZ, application No 72064/10 10/07/2012 KARAY, application No 29082/11 10/07/2012 DONMEZ and Others, application No 34769/07 13/03/2012 NARIN, application No 1769/08 20/03/2012 TURHAN, application No 4856/05 22/05/2012 BODUR, application No 19165/06 22/05/2012 OZTURK, application No 25768/07 22/05/2012 BALCI AND OTHERS, application No 3704/09 22/05/2012 OZKAN, application No 45868/09 22/05/2012   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 7 March 2013 at the 1164th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.