no information has been provided by the authorities for the present meeting;   Recalling further that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 31 January 2019, the Court held that the respondent State

part of Cyprus since the military intervention by Turkey in July and August   1974;   Recalling that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 12 May 2014, the Court held that the respondent State

resolution, the Committee declared that this continued refusal by Türkiye is in flagrant conflict with its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State

call on them to present an action plan setting out the concrete measures to execute the judgments in this group;   REITERATED WITH FIRM INSISTENCE the unconditional obligation of every respondent State

1;   recalling further that the European Court found a violation of Article 38; Recalling also that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 31 January 2019, the Court held that the respondent State

xa0; recalling further that the European Court found a violation of Article 38;   Recalling also that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 31 January 2019, the Court held that the respondent State

Russian Federation is required to implement them;   Recalling further that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 31 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights held that the respondent State

part of Cyprus since the military intervention by Turkey in July and August   1974;   Recalling that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 12 May 2014, the Court held that the respondent State

resolution, the Committee declared that this continued refusal by Turkey is in flagrant conflict with its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State

the judgments of the Court finding violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, due to the non-enforcement of court decisions or arbitral awards ordering State-controlled

companies to pay various amounts to the applicant parties;   Reiterating with firm insistence that Romania, as every contracting State, has an unconditional obligation, under the terms of Article

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”);   Recalling that in its judgment of 18 September 2009 the European Court of Human Rights held that the respondent State

process, and measures to eliminate the harassment and intimidation of the pupils, parents and staff members;   FIRMLY REITERATED its insistence on the unconditional obligation of every respondent State

provided by the authorities for the present meeting;   Recalling further that in its judgment on just satisfaction, of 31 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights held that the respondent State

Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which it is a party fully, effectively and promptly and that this obligation is binding on all State

to execute this judgment, with the exception of its dissemination to competent state bodies;   Firmly reiterating once again, having regard to the scale and nature of the grave violations found,

well as necessary procedures to ensure that budgetary constraints are duly considered when passing legislation to prevent situations of non-enforcement of domestic court decisions rendered against the State

Respondent State urged to pay just satisfactions award