CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 23 octobre 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 } .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 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2024)259 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Four cases against Portugal   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 October 2024 at the 1510 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 75637/13 ANTUNES EMÍDIO AND SOARES GOMES DA CRUZ 24/09/2019 24/09/2019 78873/13 FREITAS RANGEL 11/01/2022 11/04/2022 58106/15 WELSH AND SILVA CANHA 30/03/2022 30/03/2022 42713/15 PATRÍCIO MONTEIRO TELO DE ABREU 07/06/2022 10/10/2022   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 due to the applicants’ criminal convictions for defamation on account of statements and comments made by them in different contexts (violations of Article 10);   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 execute the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2024)607-rev2 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid and the only applicant who requested the reopening of the proceedings at issue has obtained the quashing of the criminal conviction against him, with final effect and no mention of this conviction appears in his criminal record;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these cases is currently examined within the framework of the case Almeida Arroja v. Portugal , also in the light of the Court’s findings in these cases, 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;   CONCLUDES that the necessary individual measures have been adopted;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures in the case Almeida Arroja v. Portugal ;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.