CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s161F193C { font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s4CDBBA1E { 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:bottom } .sB7FB9D9B { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:bottom } .s70B41AB9 { 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:bottom } .s790D6B17 { 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:bottom } .s256014D3 { 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:bottom } .s309031D4 { 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:bottom } .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)231 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Six cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 June 2018at the 1318 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 50264/08 ANATOLIY RUDENKO 17/04/2014 17/07/2014 25978/07 GARKAVYY 18/02/2010 18/05/2010 40939/05 KVASHKO 26/09/2013 26/12/2013 24037/08 LELYUK 17/11/2016 17/02/2017 31898/06 TARAN 17/10/2013 17/01/2014 26127/03 VITRUK 16/09/2010 21/02/2011   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 mainly on account of unlawful detention and excessive length of detention on remand as well as the lack of judicial review compatible with the standards laid down in the Court’s case-law and an enforceable right to compensation (violations of Articles 5, paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5);   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 information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Annex II to the document DH-DD(2018)374 );   Considering that the question of individual measures has been resolved in these cases, given that the applicants are no longer in detention on remand and that all required individual measures have also been taken in respect of the other violations found by the Court; noting in that respect that the criminal proceedings have concluded in the cases of Taran and Vitruk and that the applicant Taran was no longer detained when the Court delivered its judgment;   Recalling that the Committee will continue to supervise the general measures and the outstanding questions related to the application of detention on remand under the 2012 Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of the Ignatov group of cases;   Noting that questions related to excessive length of criminal proceedings, raised by the Taran and Vitruk cases, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Merit group of cases;   Noting that questions related to poor conditions of detention, raised by the Taran case, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Nevmerzhitsky group of cases;   Noting that questions related to arbitrary confinement in a psychiatric hospital, raised by the Anatoliy   Rudenko case, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Gorshkov group of cases;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the cases listed below and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.