CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 juin 2021

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8A75A232 { font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .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 } .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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCEF2C954 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)111 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 12 cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 2021 at the 1406 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 32569/08 GRIGORYEV 07/03/2019 07/03/2019 58444/15 GRUBNYK 17/09/2020 17/12/2020 44475/08+ KARELSKIY AND OTHERS 06/12/2018 06/12/2018 26744/16 KORBAN 04/07/2019 09/12/2019 66217/10 KRASNYUK 17/12/2019 17/12/2019 63542/13+ LAVRIK AND OTHERS 25/06/2020 25/06/2020 14490/07+ MARIYANCHUK AND OTHERS 17/01/2019 17/01/2019 61075/10+ MEDVEDEV AND KOSTYUK 20/12/2018 20/12/2018 76273/11 ROMANOV 28/05/2020 28/05/2020 66356/10+ VERKHOGLYAD AND PASICHNYY 08/11/2018 08/11/2018 72192/12+ VYSHNEVSKYY AND OTHERS 28/05/2020 28/05/2020 10444/13 YELNIK 06/02/2020 06/02/2020   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 different violations established related to pre-trial detention, including on account of excessive length of pre-trial detention and absence of the speedy review (violations of Article 5 of the Convention);   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 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(2021)340 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was therefore resolved, given that the applicants are no longer held in detention on remand and that all required individual measures have also been taken in respect of the other violations found by the Court; noting in that respect that the criminal proceedings have concluded in the cases of Yelnik, Mariyanchuk and Others, Karelskiy and Others, Krasnyuk, Korban Verkhoglyad and Others ; that the restriction in the Krasnyuk case on the applicant’s right to receive family visits in detention ended in April 2012; that questions related to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, (the wording of the pre-trial detention order in breach of the presumption of innocence), raised by the Grubnyk case, had no impact on the criminal proceedings in which he was not convicted; that the applicant in the Korban case was convicted only on some of the charges, where he plead guilty and signed a friendly settlement with the victim in March 2016 and all other charges were dropped and the criminal proceedings discontinued in 2017;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the main shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Ignatov group of cases and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to detention on remand;   Noting that questions related to excessive length of criminal proceedings, raised by the Yelnik, Mariyanchuk and others, Karelskiy and Others, Krasnyuk, Korban Verkhoglyad and Others cases , are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Merit group of cases;   Noting that questions related to the violation of Article 3 (the applicant’s state of health during the trial and the confinement of the applicant in a metal cage during court hearings), raised by the Korban case, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Lutsenko (no. 2) group of cases;   Noting that questions related to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 2 (the statements of the authorities with regard to the criminal proceedings against the applicant in breach of the presumption of innocence), raised by the Korban case, were examined by the Committee in the Shagin group (closed by the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)294 );   Noting that questions related to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 2 (the wording of the pre-trial detention order in breach of the presumption of innocence), raised by the Grubnyk case, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Panteleyenko group of cases;   Noting that questions related to the violation of Article 8 (unjustified restriction of detainees’ contacts with their families), raised by the Krasnyuk case, are being examined by the Committee in the context of the supervision of the Shalimov 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.