CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 mars 2018

.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 } .s1A61A404 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)101 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 16 cases against Slovenia   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 March 2018 at the 1310 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 37927/12 ARAPOVIĆ 29/10/2015 29/10/2015 6625/10 BEGANOVIĆ 03/04/2014 03/04/2014 50844/12 BELJKAŠ 29/10/2015 29/10/2015 6000/10 BRLEK 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 7054/10 ČETIĆ 27/02/2014 27/02/2014 6687/10 FAGANEL 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 5747/10 JEVŠNIK 09/01/2014 09/01/2014 5773/10 MASELJ 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 6234/10 PRAZNIK 28/06/2012 28/09/2012 5738/10 ŠABIĆ 03/04/2014 03/04/2014 5741/10 ŠEMIĆ 05/06/2014 05/06/2014 6120/10 SLEMENŠEK 03/04/2014 03/04/2014 5903/10+ ŠTRUCL AND OTHERS 20/10/2011 20/01/2012 6011/10 ŠTRUKELJ 27/02/2014 27/02/2014 5998/10 PETROVIĆ 06/11/2014 06/11/2014 29998/10 PUZIN 06/11/2014 06/11/2014   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 on account of poor conditions of detention in the Ljubljana prison and the lack of an effective domestic remedy (violations of Articles 3 and 13);   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, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2018)182 );   Considering that the question of individual measures has been resolved, given that the applicants have been released;   Recalling that as a result of the comprehensive and multifaceted approach adopted by the authorities of the respondent State to combat overcrowding, each prisoner in the Ljubljana prison is currently afforded at least 4.5 square metres of living space;   Recalling further that the authorities of the respondent State introduced a preventive remedy enabling judicial protection in cases of poor conditions of detention for convicted prisoners as well as an effective compensatory remedy for released prisoners;   Noting that the respondent State has recently introduced a preventive remedy enabling judicial protection to complain about poor conditions of detention for remand prisoners;   Noting that the issue of effective compensatory remedies for convicted and remand prisoners remains under examination within the framework of the Mandić and Jović case (Application No. 5774/10) and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to this issue;   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.