CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 novembre 2022

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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(2022)290 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Four cases against Greece   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 November 2022 at the 1447 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 28504/05 KANELLOPOULOU 11/10/2007 31/03/2008 10347/10 MIKA 19/12/2013 19/03/2014 73087/17 BALASKAS 05/11/2020 05/02/2021 1864/18 MATALAS 25/03/2021 25/06/2021   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 disproportionate interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression due to the criminal convictions imposed on them for malicious defamation, defamation or insult (violations of Article 10), as well as on account of the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in the Kanellopoulou 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 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 report 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(2022)1006 );   Considering that no further individual measures are necessary since the applicants either have not availed themselves of the opportunity to request reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings following the judgments of the European Court (in the Matalas case), or their cases have been reopened leading to the termination of the criminal prosecution (in the cases of Balaskas and Kanellopoulou ) as well as the imposition of the minimum sanction possible (in the Mika case); noting also that the lengthy domestic proceedings in the Kanellopoulou case have been terminated;   Recalling that issue of the excessive length of civil proceedings was examined in the Glykantzi case and closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)231 ;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the violations established in these cases continues to be examined within the framework of the Katrami case (Application No. 19331/05) and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required;   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.