CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 septembre 2024

.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 } .sB9C2D5DC { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .s60926251 { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .sB9AE580D { 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; background-color:#ffffff } .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 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2024)207 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Rock Ruby Hotels LTD against Turkey   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 September 2024 at the 1507 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 46159/99 ROCK RUBY HOTELS LTD 22/09/2009 26/10/2010 01/03/2010 11/04/2011   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 this case and to the violation 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 the Court awarded to the applicant company just satisfaction in respect of the loss of use of its properties and in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;   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 noted that the applicant company had concluded a friendly settlement with the Immovable Property Commission set up in the northern part of Cyprus in 2005, providing for the payment of a global sum covering all aspects of the applicant company’s property claims, including the value of the properties and the sums awarded by the European Court, together with default interest (see document DH-DD(2024)1000 );   Having noted the confirmation of the payment of the sum agreed;   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved and recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in this case continues to be examined within the framework of the Cyprus v. Turkey case and that the closure of this case 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 this case;   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.