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 } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)413 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Five cases against Bulgaria   (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 8429/05 PREZHDAROVI 30/09/2014 16/02/2015 58497/10 DIMOVA-IVANOVA AND IVANOV 31/05/2018 31/05/2018 22536/11 ILIEVA 12/12/2019 12/12/2019 61322/10 DERMANSKI 17/12/2020 17/12/2020 5113/11 MARIN YOSIFOV 13/10/2020 13/01/2021   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 searches and seizures, carried out without judicial warrant and approved by judicial rulings that failed to ensure any meaningful review, and the lack of an effective remedy in this regard, as well as, in the Marin Yosifov case, on account of the failure to comply with the obligation to bring the applicant promptly before a judge in relation to police and prosecutor-ordered detention period and the lack of judicial review of this detention;   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(2025)1423 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that no individual measures other than the payment of just satisfaction were required in the Prezhdarovi case and that in the other cases searches and seizures were carried out in 2005 and 2010, respectively, and in the course of the execution process the authorities or the Committee of Ministers were not informed of any requests for the return of the items;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in this these judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Iliya Stefanov 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 safeguards in relation to searches and seizure and remedies regarding searches and seizure;   Having noted that the general measures required to prevent violations due to failure to bring a detained person promptly before a judge in the context of detention ordered by a prosecutor and the lack of judicial review of such detention has been examined in the context of the Kandzhov group ( CM/ResDH(2017)409 );   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases;   CONCLUDES that the question of the individual measures has been resolved;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures in the Iliya Stefanov group of cases;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.