CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 décembre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)270 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Novoseletskiy against Ukraine   Application Case Judgment of Final on 47148/99 NOVOSELETSKIY 22/02/2005 20/05/2005   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2014 at the 1214th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     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 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 information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see details in Appendix);   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 this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)270   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Novoseletskiy against Ukraine     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the applicant’s eviction from a flat, which had been earlier granted to him for unlimited duration by the Melitopol State Teacher Training Institute (“the Institute”) where he had taught. After the applicant’s departure to the Russian Federation in 1995, the Institute granted a permit in respect of the same apartment to another employee. The applicant’s complaints were examined by the Ukrainian courts, which finally, in 2001, recognised his right to occupy the flat but refused to award him compensation for being deprived of it between 1996 and 2001. Moreover, the flat had been returned to the applicant in a condition unfit for human habitation, which prevented the applicant from living there with his family.   The Court found that the State had failed to discharge itself of its positive obligations consisting of restoring and protecting the applicant’s right to respect for his home as well as his private and family life (violation of Article 8). It also found a violation of the applicant’s right to enjoy his possessions on account of a lack of efficient and impartial investigation into the applicant’s allegations that his belongings had been removed from the flat at issue (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   I.   Individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage, including the belongings which allegedly disappeared from the flat.   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 8   000 EUR - 8 000 EUR Paid on 06/10/2005 (default interest of 47.87 EUR paid on 03/04/2008)   b) Other individual measures   1) Violation of Article 8: The Ukrainian authorities indicated that they attempted to visit the flat to ascertain its condition. However, the applicant refused any co-operation with them and they were thus unable to take any further measure in this respect   2) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Following the Court’s judgment, an additional investigation into the applicant’s complaint concerning his belongings was conducted. As a result, the authorities closed the criminal case due to the lack of corpus delicti .   Against this background, no further individual measures appear possible.     II.   General measures   The judgment was translated into Ukrainian and placed on the website of the Ministry of Justice. It was also published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 31, 2005 and in the Bulletin of the Supreme Court , No. 8, 2005.   The government Agent drew attention to the present judgment in the course of a number of seminars and trainings for judges.   The Ukrainian authorities consider that the violations found in this case were not due to legislative shortcomings but due to the conduct of the authorities in this particular case, which represents an isolated incident. In view of the direct effect of the Convention and the Court’s case-law, no further general measures appear to be required. III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new similar violations and that Ukraine has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.