CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 12 juin 2019

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sAA545E1F { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.85pt; vertical-align:middle } .s3D9F2A26 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .sA9A545F2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s5511CAC6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .s7772F3AF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:12pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s681AFBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:12pt } .s1A8C3523 { border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s136EDA67 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sD94837F9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s1DE73FA8 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2350419D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top } .s75AB092F { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4C3FE5B { padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s53991FD0 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s68B5446C { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt; color:#333333 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBA0A53BC { font-family:Arial; color:#129af0 } .sA728BB71 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:12pt } .sBFFDCF { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)137 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Mekiye Demirci against Turkey (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 June 2019 at the 1349 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 17722/02 MEKİYE DEMİRCİ 23/04/2013 23/07/2013 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established; 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 judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)415 ); Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the fact that the applicant was taken into custody for further interrogation under the state of emergency legislation after her detention on remand had been ordered as well as the absence of a remedy to challenge her detention in custody (violations of Articles 5, paragraphs 1 (c) and 4) and that the Committee decided to close the examination of these issues in its concerning the Dağ and Yaşar against Turkey and Emrullah Karagoz cases (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)96 in the cases of Dağ and Yaşar and Emrullah Karagoz ); Recalling that the Committee decided to close the examination of other similar cases concerning the absence of a right to compensation for unlawful detention on remand (violation of Article 5, paragraph 5) (see Final Resolutions ResDH(2002)110 concerning the Sakik and Others group of cases and   see CM/ResDH(2016)332 concerning the Demirel 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 this case and DECIDES to close the examination thereof.