CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 juin 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sC16889D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s589818D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4E34B50A { 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:middle } .s1C2B10C2 { 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:middle } .s23CD0580 { 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:middle } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)76 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Kolona against Cyprus   (Application No. 28025/03, judgment of 27 September 2007, final on 27 December 2007, judgment (just satisfaction) of 2 October 2008 – friendly settlement)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the unlawful demolition of the applicant’s home in 2000 (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article 8) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the sums agreed under the friendly settlement (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)76   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Kolona against Cyprus     Introductory case summary   This case concerns unjustified interference in the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, due to the unlawful demolition of her home in 2000 and for the same reasons, a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her home (violations of Article 1of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8).   The European Court observed that the authorities demolished the applicant’s house on the basis of a requisition order adopted simultaneously with an order of compulsory acquisition in the public interest. The European Court noted that the compulsory acquisition and requisition orders “were clearly and inseparably linked but that at the time of the demolition, the compulsory acquisition order had been revoked because the property was no longer required in the public interest. The European Court therefore considered that the demolition of the applicant’s home was arbitrary and unlawful. In addition it noted that the applicant had neither been given effective notification of the intended demolition of her house nor been offered or granted any compensation for the demolition, despite the authorities’ duty both under the Constitution (Article 23(3) and 23(8)(d)) and the applicable legislation (section 11 of the Requisition of Property Law 1962 (Law 21/62, as amended)).   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures     a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses Legal costs Other Total 218,326.28 EUR 13,800.00 EUR 31,637.72 EUR 263,764.00 EUR Paid on 18/12/2008     b) Individual measures   In a separate judgment concerning Article 41, the European Court noted that a friendly settlement had been reached between the parties. The Court found the agreement equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules of the Court and that it was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols. The government paid the applicant the sums in accordance with the friendly settlement within the time-limit agreed. In the circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.   II.   General measures   The Cypriot authorities consider that the violation in this case was an isolated incident resulting from the inappropriate application of the relevant legal provisions.   The judgment of the European Court was translated and published on the Human Rights Section of the Legal Service web-site. The judgment was sent to the authorities concerned, including the Land Registry, the Department of Finance, the Ministry of the Interior, the Limassol Land Registry, the Department for Transport and the Department for Public Works. The judgment was sent under cover of a detailed letter explaining the reasons for the findings of the European Court. Particular emphasis was placed on the question of payment of compensation. The letter and judgment were again circulated along with a copy of the Article 41 judgment to the authorities concerned, the Supreme Court, the President of the Cyprus Bar Association and the Presidents of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Parliamentary Committees.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Cyprus has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies