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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sE81ED948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-36pt } .s2805447C { width:27.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1C4DC8B8 { width:24.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7E6AC2AD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)414 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Two 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 9051/18 BOZHILOVI 15/03/2022 15/03/2022 26759/12 PETROVI 02/02/2017 02/02/2017   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 violation established on account of the unjustified delays to provide compensation in the form of flats or garages which the authorities undertook to construct and deliver to the applicants as compensation for expropriation of their property ;   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)1415 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that: (i)                    the just satisfaction awarded by the Court to the applicants for the delays was paid; (ii)                  the Court concluded that, after the date when the applicants became aware that the construction of flats/ garages due to them would not proceed, they had at their disposal means to unblock the compensation procedure, which was a possibility that was still open;   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 Basmenkova 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 required;   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 Basmenkova group of cases;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.