CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 décembre 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 } .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 } .s74384AE5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.4pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)462 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Five cases against Greece   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2018 at the 1331 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Cases Judgment of Final on 38752/04 GEORGOULIS AND OTHERS 21/06/2007 21/09/2007 17229/08 KALOGRANIS AND KALOGRANI 12/05/2010 12/08/2010 32636/05 MOSCHOPOULOS-VEÏNOGLOU AND OTHERS 18/10/2007 18/01/2008 32884/09 VASILIADOU 06/04/2017 06/07/2017 33252/08 VENTOURIS AND OTHERS 31/01/2012 30/04/2012   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 violation(s) established on account a) of non-compliance or delayed compliance with final domestic court judgments ordering the lifting of land expropriation orders and the subsequent modification of the district boundary plan, b) the lack of an effective remedy through which the applicants could pursue the enforcement of judgments ordering the lifting of their land expropriation or burden, and c) the lack of effective means of challenging the re-expropriation of land immediately after the lifting of the prior expropriation order;   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 to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see documents DH-DD(2015)1227 , DH-DD(2017)769 and DH-DD(2018)973 );   Recalling that the closure of these cases in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required to resolve the problems related to a) non-compliance or delayed compliance with final domestic court judgments ordering the lifting of land expropriation orders and the subsequent modification of the district boundary plan, b) the lack of an effective remedy through which the applicants could pursue the enforcement of judgments ordering the lifting of their land expropriation or burden, and c) the lack of effective means of challenging the re-expropriation of land immediately after the lifting of the prior expropriation order, these measures being examined in the context of the Beka-Koulocheri group of cases;     Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   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 thereof.