CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 décembre 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 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s706500A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)315 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 20 cases against Greece   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 December 2020 at the 1391 st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 53541/07 S.D. 11/06/2009 11/09/2009 8256/07 TABESH 26/11/2009 26/02/2010 12186/08 A.A. 22/07/2010 22/10/2010 41533/08 BUBULLIMA 28/10/2010 28/01/2011 2237/08 R.U. 07/06/2011 07/09/2011 33225/08 EFREMIDZE 21/06/2011 21/09/2011 74279/10 LICA 17/07/2012 17/10/2012 14902/10 MAHMUNDI AND OTHERS 31/07/2012 31/10/2012 50520/09 AHMADE 25/09/2012 25/12/2012 58158/10 LIN 06/11/2012 06/02/2013 58165/10 KHUROSHVILI 12/12/2013 12/03/2014 33441/10+ C.D. AND OTHERS 19/12/2013 19/03/2014 26418/11+ HERMAN AND SHERAZADISHVILI 24/04/2014 24/07/2014 46673/10 A.E. 27/11/2014 27/02/2015 70586/11 MOHAMAD 11/12/2014 11/03/2015 74308/10 E.A. 30/07/2015 30/10/2015 58424/11 H.A. 21/01/2016 21/04/2016 37991/11 AMADOU 04/02/2016 04/05/2016 31614/11 F.E. 23/06/2016 23/06/2016 58387/11 HA.A. 21/04/2016 21/07/2016   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: the unlawfulness of the detention of asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors and irregular migrants (violations of Article 5, paragraph 1); the lack of an effective domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the detention (violations of Article 5, paragraph 4); the conditions of detention or the applicants’ living conditions after their release (violations of Article 3); the lack of an effective remedy to challenge conditions of detention (violations of Article 13); deficiencies of the asylum procedure followed in respect of the applicants and the risk of deportation without serious consideration of the asylum application and without access to an effective remedy (violations of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3);     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 revised action plan 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 document DH-DD(2020)867 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved given that the applicants have been released;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments concerning conditions of detention or the applicants’ living conditions after their release (violations of Article 3); as well as the deficiencies of the asylum procedure and the risk of deportation without serious consideration of the asylum application and without access to an effective remedy (violations of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3) continue to be examined within the framework of the M.S.S. and Rahimi groups of cases, while the question of measures required in respect of the lack of an effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention (Article 13) was closed by the Committee of Ministers at its 1348 th meeting (June 2019) (DH);   Recalling their decision adopted for this present group of cases S.D . at the 1265 th meeting (September 2016) (DH) in which, in view of the legislative changes concerning the administrative detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants and the European Court’s case-law in this connection, considered that the necessary measures in response to the violations of Article 5, paragraph 1, had been taken and decided to end the supervision of this issue;   Noting, with respect to violations of Article 5, paragraph 4, that the respondent State took legislative measures with a view to allowing individuals in the applicants’ situation to challenge before courts the lawfulness of their detention;   Noting further that the outstanding issues with respect to the violations of Article 5, paragraph 4, relating to the issues of accessibility and full effectiveness of the remedy before courts, introduced by the above-mentioned legislation, continue to be examined by the Committee within the context of the framework of the new M.D. group of cases and that the closure of these cases in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the remaining general measures in relation to the aforementioned issues;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.