CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .s30F363D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sD362EB { width:14.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)357 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Fourteen cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 September 2018 at the 1324 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 23081/07 BARSUKOVYY 26/02/2015 26/02/2015 51151/10 BASYUK 05/11/2015 05/02/2016 60790/12 CHUMAK 19/05/2016 19/05/2016 20142/10 DERNOVYY AND DERNOVA 02/06/2016 02/06/2016 4737/06 KACHURKA 15/09/2011 15/12/2011 65663/12 MARCHUK 28/07/2016 28/07/2016 42279/08 MASHCHENKO 11/06/2015 11/06/2015 40525/05 NIKOLAY VOLKOGONOV AND IGOR VOLKOGONOV 28/11/2013 28/11/2013 10904/05 PRYNDA 31/07/2012 31/10/2012 47690/07 SERGIYENKO 19/04/2012 19/07/2012 8347/12 SHEPELENKO 14/01/2016 14/01/2016 40298/06 SHULGA 12/11/2015 12/11/2015 65055/12 STABROVSKA 14/01/2016 14/01/2016 36660/08 ZUBKOVA 17/10/2013 17/01/2014   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 lack of effective investigations into the deaths of the applicants’ relatives caused, inter alia , by road traffic accidents or in unclear circumstances;   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 plan provided by the government indicating the individual 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 document DH-DD(2018)591 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the domestic proceedings have been terminated and just satisfaction, where awarded by the Court, was paid;   Recalling that the closure of these cases in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to the effectiveness of investigations into the deaths caused, inter alia , by road traffic accidents, illegal acts of private individuals or in unclear circumstances, as the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Khaylo v. Ukraine group of cases;   Noting that questions related to excessive length of civil proceedings, raised by the Chumak case, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Svetlana Naumenko group of cases;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.