CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 22 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 } .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 } .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(2017)69 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Twelve cases against Spain   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 February 2017 at the 1278 th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 37496/04 IGUALL COLL 10/03/2009 10/06/2009 17122/07 MARCOS BARRIOS 21/09/2010 21/12/2010 15256/07 GARCIA HERNANDEZ 16/11/2010 16/02/2011 16096/08 ALMENARA ALVAREZ 25/10/2011 25/01/2012 23002/07 LACADENA CALERO 22/11/2011 22/02/2012 21460/08 VALBUENA REDONDO 13/12/2011 13/03/2012 49183/08 SERRANO CONTRERAS 20/03/2012 20/06/2013 5606/09+ VILANOVA GOTERRIS and LLOP GARCIA 27/11/2012 27/11/2012 26234/12 NIETO MACERO 08/10/2013 08/10/2013 18054/10 SAINZ CASLA 05/11/2013 05/11/2013 47530/13 PORCEL TERRIBAS AND OTHERS 08/03/2016 08/03/2016 61112/12 GÓMEZ OLMEDA 29/03/2016 29/06/2016   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 and to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention established in these cases due to the lack of a public hearing before the courts of appeal, when they are called upon to decide on both factual and legal aspects of a criminal case; as well as to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention established in the case of Serrano Contreras due to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings;   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 reports provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see documents DH-DD(2013)36 and DH-DD(2016)1215-rev );   Welcoming, as regards the individual measures, the adoption by Spain of provisions introducing in its legislation the possibility – already recognised in the practice of the highest national courts – for the applicants to obtain the review of final court decisions when the European Court has found a violation of the Convention;   Noting, as regards the general measures, the amendments brought by Law No. 41/2015 of 5 October 2015 to the Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which the courts of appeal are no longer competent to decide a case on the merits and must refer it back to the first instance court when they consider that there was an error in the assessment of the evidence by the latter;   Recalling that the question related to the excessive length of criminal proceedings is examined within the framework of the Moreno Carmona group of cases;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.