CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 décembre 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s12DDCA72 { width:102.36%; 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCEF2C954 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)420 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 13 cases against Bulgaria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 December 2017 at the 1302 nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Case Judgment of Final on 37104/97 KITOV 03/04/2003 03/07/2003 27240/04 RUMEN GEORGIEV 14/10/2010 14/10/2010 27402/05 NACHEV 21/12/2010 21/12/2010 33560/06 PETKO YORDANOV 26/07/2012 26/07/2012 35549/04 KOSTOV AND OTHERS 16/12/2010 16/12/2010 41008/04 GERDZHIKOV 04/02/2010 04/05/2010 43586/04 ANGELOV AND OTHERS 04/11/2010 04/02/2011 4551/05 GEORGIEV AND OTHERS 24/02/2011 24/02/2011 38299/05 SPAS TODOROV 05/11/2009 05/02/2010 40495/04 FILIPOV 10/06/2010 10/09/2010 45950/99 DJANGOZOV 08/07/2004 08/10/2004 9143/02 JELIAZKOV AND OTHERS 03/04/2008 03/07/2008 19207/04 PETKO IVANOV 26/03/2009 26/06/2009   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 concerning the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 6 and 13), as well as the excessive length of the pre-trial detention of the applicant in the Filipov case (violation of Article 5   §   3);   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 to give effect to the judgments, in particular the introduction of an acceleratory remedy in criminal matters and the amendments concerning the duration of the preliminary inquiry and the opening of the pre-trial investigation, as well as the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2017)1133 );   Considering that the measures adopted by the authorities constitute an important additional safeguard for the prevention of violations relating to non-observance of the reasonable time requirement in criminal proceedings or in civil proceedings dependent on criminal proceedings;   Having noted that the question of the functioning of the new acceleratory remedy in criminal matters is entirely taken up in the context of the S.Z. / Kolevi group, which remains under the supervision of the Committee;   Noting in addition the introduction of a combination of compensatory domestic remedies which has been considered effective by the European Court;   Noting finally that the question raised in the Filipov case concerning the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was examined in the context of the Evgeni Ivanov group of cases, closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)164 ;   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.