CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 mars 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA34329EC { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s88A4DB4E { 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:middle } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .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 } .s23385D7A { height:23.55pt } .s3614B0A7 { height:17.75pt } .sC8F2E78A { height:16.9pt } .s3590B0A7 { height:17.35pt } .sA055E78A { height:17.9pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s35B3B0A7 { height:17.65pt } .s35F1B0A7 { height:17.45pt } .sA11BE78A { height:17.3pt } .s3652B0A7 { height:17.55pt } .s73823462 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:5pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA1C0E78A { height:17.4pt } .s35CEB0A7 { height:17.15pt } .s9DD34CD6 { height:17pt } .s4AA5B0A7 { height:18.15pt } .s352FB0A7 { height:17.25pt } .sA15DE78A { height:17.1pt } .s4A06B0A7 { height:18.25pt } .s11BEB50D { 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:middle } .sEAD70FA9 { 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:middle } .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 } .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(2011)34 [1]     Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 18 cases against the Slovak Republic   (see Appendix)     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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final, and following the Court’s finding of violations of the Convention in these cases;   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 judgments;   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 further satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments,     DECLARES, in the light of the above that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)34   Information on the judgments in 18 cases against the Slovak Republic     Cases under examination   Application No. Case name Date of judgment Date of final judgment   Decision to close   29032/95 Feldek 12/07/2001 12/10/2001 798 meeting, June 2002 32686/96 Marônek 19/04/2001 19/07/2001 783 meeting, February 2002 39753/98 König 20/01/2004 20/04/2004 914 meeting, February 2005, vol. 1 49418/99 Hrico 20/07/2004 20/10/2004 966 meeting, June 2006 19011/05 Tomčáni 29/09/2009 29/12/2009 Closure 1086 meeting, June 2010 Leading case Krumpel and Krumpelová ( CM/Res(2007)10 ) 39359/98 Pavletić 22/06/2004 10/11/2004 940 meeting, October 2005 41784/98 A.B. 04/03/2003 04/06/2003 933 meeting, June   2005 43377/98 Žiačik 07/01/2003 07/04/2003 841 meeting, June   2003 47227/99 Baková 12/11/2002 21/05/2003 885 meeting, June   2004 53371/99 Čanády 16/11/2004 30/03/2005 960 meeting, March   2006 18268/03 Čanády No. 2 20/10/2009 20/01/2010 1086 meeting, June   2010, Leading case Lauko, DH(99)554 54822/00 Micovčin 27/05/2003 Friendly settlement 1086 meeting, June   2010 64001/00 Mikulová 06/12/2005 06/03/2006 997 meeting, June   2007 65575/01 Hornáček 06/12/2005 06/03/2006 997 meeting, June   2007 69208/01 Šmál 07/11/2006 07/02/2007 997 meeting, June   2007 54797/00 H.F. 08/11/2005 08/02/2006 997 meeting, June   2007 69146/01 Babylonová 20/06/2006 20/06/2006 997 meeting, June   2007 24528/02 Borovský 02/06/2009 02/09/2009 1100 meeting, December 2010   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2011 at the 1108th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies