CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 1 octobre 2020

.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 } .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 } .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 } .sB217F55E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s2E49B105 { background-color:#ffffff } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4AC9B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)204 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya Yukos against Russian Federation   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 1 October 2020 at the 1383 rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 14902/04 OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS 20/09/2011 31/07/2014 08/03/2012 15/12/2014   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”);   Recalling that in the judgment on the merits in this case the Court established violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 3 (b), and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the tax and enforcement proceedings against the applicant company and in the just satisfaction judgment the Court awarded EUR 1,866,104,634 in respect of pecuniary damage, payable to the applicant company’s former shareholders and their legal successors and heirs, and indicated that within six months of the judgment becoming final the respondent State must produce, in co-operation with the Committee of Ministers, a comprehensive plan, including a binding time frame, for distribution of the award of just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage;   Recalling further that the Court awarded EUR 300,000 in respect of costs and expenses payable to the representative of applicant company, with simple interest to be paid in the event that the costs and expenses were not settled within three months of the judgment’s becoming final;   Underlining that a State may not invoke the provisions of its internal   law   as justification for its failure to perform a   treaty;   NOTES that on 15 May 2013 the authorities submitted an action plan detailing the general measures taken which will be assessed for the next examination of this case;   NOTES FURTHER that the award of EUR 300,000 made in respect of costs and expenses has been paid but that the default interest due is still outstanding;   INSISTS upon the unconditional obligation assumed by the Russian Federation   under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by the European Court’s just satisfaction judgment of 31 July 2014;   STRONGLY REGRETS that the comprehensive plan for the distribution of the just satisfaction award in respect of pecuniary damage required by the Court is still awaited and that the payment of the just satisfaction in this respect is still outstanding;   FURTHER DEEPLY REGRETS, while expressing their understanding for the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, that the authorities were unable to enter into detailed consultations with the Secretariat, as encouraged at the last examination ;   STRONGLY URGES the authorities to consider the use of any suitable formats for detailed consultations with the Secretariat as soon as practically possible and to report to the Committee on the progress achieved by 31 March 2021 at the latest;   REGRETS that the authorities have not complied with the Committee’s invitation to provide clarifications as to   the   possible   implications   of   the   adoption of the proposed amendments of Article 79 of the Constitution for this case;   DECIDES to resume examination of this case at its Human Rights meeting in September 2021 at the latest.