CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 mars 2022

.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 } .sC91ABB0B { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9BD57404 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s727AB2A5 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2DC3589C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#129af0 } .sF1474A11 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .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 } .s13D4A11 { margin-top:4.8pt; 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s660ED72C { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3C48324A { font-family:Arial; font-size:5pt; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s8F02C820 { width:33% } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sFE2B4807 { margin-top:4.8pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt; color:#0072bc; list-style-position:inside } .s2EF9599E { width:26.42pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3993935B { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#129af0 } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)53 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Two cases against the Russian Federation (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 March 2022 at the 1428 th   meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies [1] )     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 46632/13 NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV 23/02/2016 04/07/2016 101/15 NAVALNYYE 17/10/2017 05/03/2018 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 these two cases the European Court held that the applicants were convicted of acts indistinguishable from regular commercial activities by judicial decisions that were arbitrary, unforeseeable and manifestly unreasonable, in violation of the right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6 of the Convention) and, in the   Navalnyye   case, of the principle of   nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege   (no crime or punishment without law) (violation of Article 7 of the Convention); Recalling further its previous five decisions in the   Navalnyy and Ofitserov   case and three decisions and interim resolution in the   Navalnyye   case; Stressing again that the obligation of   restitutio in integrum   calls for measures to restore the applicants as far as possible to the position they would have enjoyed had the violations not occurred and that such measures should be compatible with the conclusions and spirit of the Court’s judgments; Underlining that restoring the applicants to that position requires annulling their convictions and   eliminating their negative consequences; Reaffirming the unconditional obligation of every respondent State, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by final judgments in cases to which it is a party; DEEPLY DEPLORED that despite its numerous calls, Mr Aleksey Navalnyy remains in detention and the convictions impugned by the Court’s judgments in these cases stand; EXHORTED again the authorities to take all possible steps to assure Mr Navalnyy’s immediate release, to quash the convictions impugned in both cases, and to reimburse the applicants in the amount of the fine and the civil damages they have paid; URGED the authorities, as regards general measures, to submit information on all the outstanding issues in the   Navalnyy and Ofitserov   case as well as information on the measures taken or planned to address the violations established in the   Navalnyye   case; DECIDED, in the absence of progress of execution in the   Navalnyye   case,   to consider the use of all the tools at its disposal to ensure full and prompt execution of the judgment and in particular the immediate release of Mr   Navalnyy; DECIDED to resume the consideration of these two cases at its 1436 th   meeting (June 2022) (DH).                     [1]   It is recalled that, in consequence of the serious violation by the Russian Federation of its obligations under Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers on 25 February 2022 decided to suspend the Russian Federation from its rights of representation in the Council of Europe. It is further recalled, however, that in accordance with Resolution CM/Res(2022)1, the Russian Federation remains subject to its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, it may continue to participate in the meetings of the Committee of Ministers only when the latter exercises its functions in respect of the supervision of the execution of judgments under Article 46 of the Convention with a view to providing and receiving information concerning the judgments where they are the respondent or applicant State, without the right to participate in the adoption of decisions by the Committee nor to vote.