CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 16 septembre 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 } .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 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)202 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Two cases against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 September 2021 at the 1411 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 16163/90 EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND MICHAEL TYMVIOS 31/07/2003 22/04/2008 31/10/2003 Friendly settlement 16162/90 ALEXANDROU 20/01/2009 28/07/2009 28/07/2009 Friendly settlement   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 of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 established on account of the continuous denial of access to property in the northern part of Cyprus and consequent loss of control thereof;   Recalling that, on the basis of decisions taken in their cases by the Immovable Property Commission set up in the northern part of Cyprus in 2005, the applicants concluded with the government of the Respondent State friendly settlements on the application of Article 41 of the Convention which were endorsed by the Court, providing for the payment of a sum of money in both cases, as well as for an exchange of properties in the Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios case and for the restitution of the property at stake in the Alexandrou case;   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 noted that the sum awarded in the judgment of 31   July 2003 in the Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios case, as well as the sums agreed in the friendly settlements concluded in both cases have been paid and that the immovable property at stake in the Alexandrou case has been returned to the applicant;   Recalling in respect of the Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios case the measures taken in respect of the other terms of the friendly settlement endorsed by the Court, which provided for an exchange of property “insofar as the exchange decision may be executed within the control and power of the authorities of the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’”, as well as its decision to close its examination of the individual measures in this case (see the decision adopted at the 1043 rd meeting, December 2008, DH);   Considering in the light of the above that the question of individual measures was resolved in both cases and recalling that the general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgments continue to be examined within the framework of the Cyprus against Turkey case and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots;   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.