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 } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9723C89F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sCBC20640 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6FD69B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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)72 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bozlak and others against Turkey   (Application No. 34740/03, judgment of 13 January 2009, final on 13 April 2009)     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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings before a state security court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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 just satisfaction provided in the judgment (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;   Recalling that in its Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)83 of 08/10/2008 the Committee of Ministers decided to close the examination of 10 similar cases;   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)72   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bozlak and others against Turkey     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings before a state security court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   The Court considered that the proceedings ended in the applicants’ case on 31 January 2003, when the state security court dismissed the applicants’ objection against its decision of 4 July 2002 on the stay of proceedings for five years according to the relevant provisions of Law   no.   4616.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures     a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - EUR 3000 - EUR 3000 Paid on 26/06/2009     b) Individual measures   The proceedings are closed. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.     II.   General measures   The case presents similarities to other cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings before state security courts such as that of Sertkaya and others against Turkey, which was closed by Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)83 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities, in particular following the abolition of state security courts.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Turkey 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