CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 septembre 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)120 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Velcea against Romania   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 60957/00 VELCEA 22/12/2005 Friendly settlement   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 September 2014 at the 1206th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     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 final judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee;   Recalling that the applicant’s complaints declared admissible in this case concerned inter alia his allegations of ill-treatment inflicted by a policemen and a private person, when he was arrested on 23 October 1999 and during his detention on remand, as well as the alleged inadequacy of the subsequent investigation (complaints under Article 3);   Whereas in this case the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously, to strike this case out of its list of cases and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re ‑ hearing of the case before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas, according to the terms of this friendly settlement it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicant 6 000 EUR, to cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, within three months as from the notification of the judgment;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that on 11 April 2006, twenty days after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state paid the applicant the sum provided in the friendly settlement, that this payment was made under terms which appear to have been accepted by the applicant, and that no other measure was required in this case to comply with the Court’s judgment,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close its examination.