CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 octobre 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 } .sD5AE2CCE { height:4.1pt } .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 } .sD6CCE070 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)306 Execution of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights 23 cases against Hungary   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 October 2017 at the 1296 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Date of the decision 21177/11 BALATON AIRPORT KFT 15/03/2016 24442/10 Lászlóné DARÁZSI AND 12 OTHER APPLICATIONS 30/06/2016 2778/12 Éva ECHTER 08/03/2016 60924/11 Rita FINTOR 15/03/2016 71483/11 Gyula HALMAI AND László VÁRADI 24/05/2016 75775/11 Miklós János JÁMBOR 19/04/2016 67997/11 K.I.G. 19/01/2016 49154/11 István KALMÁR 19/01/2016 75177/11 György KARIKÁS 19/01/2016 43982/11 Péter András KAZÁR 19/01/2016 72882/11 Zsolt KULCSÁR 19/01/2016 42971/11 P.O. 19/01/2016 57665/11 S.B. 19/01/2016 67593/11 István SOMKUTI 19/01/2016 40743/12 Sándor STUBER 21/06/2016 70252/11 Péter SÜMEGI 19/01/2016 78514/11 Zoltán SZABÓ AND OTHERS 09/02/2016 55883/11 Katalin SZÁSZ 19/01/2016 55810/11 György SZILVÁSY 19/01/2016 54600/11 Karoly SZITTNER 19/01/2016 16472/12 Attila VASZI AND OTHERS 09/02/2016 49135/11 Tibor VIDUS 19/01/2016 77042/11 György WIENER 19/01/2016   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.