CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 décembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sEC838919 { height:3.5pt } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)245 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Dumont and sixteen other cases of length of proceedings against Belgium   Application Case Judgment of Final on 49525/99 DUMONT 28/04/2005 28/07/2005 24731/03 BARBIER 20/09/2007 20/12/2007 27535/04 DE SAEDELEER 24/07/2007 24/10/2007 51788/99 DE STAERKE 28/04/2005 28/07/2005 31634/03 DENÉE 04/12/2007 04/03/2008 28171/04 HEREMANS 24/04/2008 24/07/2008 6203/04 IWANKOWSKI AND OTHERS 27/11/2007 27/02/2008 5950/05 JOUAN 12/02/2008 12/05/2008 18211/03 LENARDON 26/10/2006 26/01/2007 35327/05 LEONARDI 03/02/2009 03/05/2009 52098/99 LEROY 15/07/2005 15/10/2005 46046/99 MARIEN 03/11/2005 03/02/2006 40628/04 NAGLER AND NALIMMO B.V.B.A. 17/07/2007 17/10/2007 25864/04 RAWAY AND WERA 27/11/2007 27/02/2008 52112/99 REYNTIENS 28/04/2005 28/07/2005 50236/99 ROBYNS DE SCHNEIDAUER 28/04/2005 28/07/2005 29198/05 SCHINCKUS 01/04/2008 01/07/2008   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 December 2015 at the 1243rd 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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established of Article 6, paragraph 1 owing to the excessive length of proceedings and, in the case of Raway and Wera , of Article 13 of the Convention due to the lack of effective remedy in this respect;   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 in order 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(2015)1113 );   Noting that the general measures adopted by the authorities have had a satisfactory impact on the main causes of violation highlighted in these judgments, namely the length of civil proceedings before the courts of appeal and the Court of Cassation, as well as the length of judicial proceedings before several categories of criminal courts;   Noting, in addition, that Belgian law offers an effective compensatory remedy in civil matters and having noted, without prejudging the final assessment which the European Court will be called on to make, that this remedy is also applicable in criminal matters;   Noting that questions persist as concerns the length of civil proceedings before the first instance courts and the labour courts and the length of criminal proceedings before the Dutch-language chamber of the Court of Cassation which will continue to be examined in the context of the cases in the Bell group which remain under the supervision of the Committee;   Recalling also that questions related to the excessive length of pre-trial investigations are examined in the De   Clerck and others group of cases which also remain under the supervision of the Committee;     DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the above-mentioned seventeen cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.