CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCDDD76F4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2684B5E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC8062FF8 { margin-left:6.85pt; 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 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)114 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Becker, Berger, Siebert and Lück against Germany   (Becker, application No. 8722/02, judgment of 14 December 2006, friendly settlement; Berger, application No. 55809/00, judgment of 14 June 2007, friendly settlement; Siebert, application No. 59008/00, judgment of 23 March 2006, friendly settlement; Lück, application No. 58364/00, judgment of 15 May 2008, final on 15/08/2008)     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;   Recalling that the complaints declared admissible by the Court concern the length of certain juridical proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1);   Whereas in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of the friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants and of the unilateral declaration by the government in the Lück case and having been satisfied that the settlements and the unilateral declaration were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under these friendly settlements it was agreed and as well as stated in the unilateral declaration that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicants certain sums (see details in Appendix), within three months as from the notification of the judgments;   Having satisfied itself that within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlements and the unilateral declaration, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlements and the unilateral declaration (see Appendix);   Having satisfied itself that no further action is required other than the payment of just satisfaction provided in these cases and no other issues are raised;     DECLARES, after having considered the measures taken by the respondent State, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in these cases and   DECIDES to close their examination.   Annex to the Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)114   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Becker, Berger, Siebert and Lück against Germany   Information on the payment by the respondent state of just satisfaction.     Applicant’s name Sum paid (in euros) Date of payment Becker 9,500 14/03/2007 Berger 8,000 12/09/2007 Siebert 9,000 26/04/2006 Lück 10,800 13/08/2008   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies