CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 décembre 2025

.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 } .s976DE78A { height:12.8pt } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92451FED { font-size:9pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)480 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Six cases against Türkiye   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 December 2025 at the 1546 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 75805/16 TURAN AND OTHERS 23/11/2021 23/10/2025 64251/16 ACAR AND OTHERS 28/06/2022 30/05/2025 20061/17 BAYRAM AND OTHERS 06/09/2022 23/10/2025 14347/17 AYVAZ AND OTHERS 11/07/2023 23/10/2025 56483/16 KURIS AND OTHERS 25/06/2024 06/11/2025 60065/16 ALTUN AND OTHERS 24/09/2024 28/10/2025   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 unjustified broadening of the concept of in flagrante delicto to justify the initial detention of sitting judges and prosecutors, despite the absence of evidence capable of establishing a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence;   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 reports provided by the government indicating that the individual measures adopted to execute the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, and that the sums awarded in three applications with missing documents remain at the applicants’ disposal, to be paid as soon as the requisite documents are provided (see documents DH-DD(2025)1263 , DH-DD(2025)636 , DH-DD(2025)1261 , DH-DD(2025)1262 , DH-DD(2025)1327 , DH-DD(2025)1293 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the applicants are no longer subject to pre-trial detention orders;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Alparslan Altan v.   Turkey (12778/17) group of cases, 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 in relation to detention of judges and prosecutors without reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, including an unjustified and overly broad interpretation of the concept of in flagrante delicto to justify such detentions;   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 concerning unlawful detention of judges and prosecutors in the absence of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, through an overly broad and unjustified interpretation of the concept of in flagrante delicto to authorise such detentions   in the Alparslan Altan v. Turkey (12778/17) group of cases;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.