CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 1 février 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s3CC4D07E { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s74384AE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)33 Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights Twenty cases against Hungary   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 1 February 2017 at the 1276 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Date of the decision 77723/11 József BALOGH 09/02/2016 44734/11 Ildikó Katalin BOROSNÉ SZŰTS AND OTHERS 09/02/2016 37467/11 Imréné CSÉPÁNY AND OTHERS 15/03/2016 172/12 Judit CSIHA 21/06/2016 36230/15 László CZIGLER and Enikő CZIGLERNÉ TAKÁCS 23/02/2016 44732/11 László CZIGLER 23/02/2016 5322/12 Zoltán DEMETER 19/01/2016 46549/12 Zsolt FÁBOS 21/06/2016 49155/11 István FEHÉR 09/02/2016 77545/11 Szilvia FRANKNÉ KOVÁCS 09/02/2016 60660/11 Ferenc GERENCSÉR 09/02/2016 76883/11 Erzsébet GY NÉMETH 09/02/2016 65926/11 László HARSÁNYI 09/02/2016 67591/11 Edit JÁVORNÉ VÉGH 09/02/2016 16471/12 László József LIZIK 03/05/2016 54608/11 Kata Orsolya MOLNÁR 21/06/2016 13045/11 POLITREFF KFT 19/01/2016 5378/12 Márta SCHNEIDER 21/06/2016 5379/12 Gyula TÓTH 21/06/2016 56872/12 Z.L.B. 21/06/2016   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 the 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 the 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 to strike these cases from its list;   Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlements were executed by the government of the respondent State,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and   DECIDES to close their examination.