CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 12 mars 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCA654B4E { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s60AA8033 { font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sBCFC7255 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2015)46 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Catan and Others against Russian Federation   Application Case Judgment of Final on 43370/04+ CATAN AND OTHERS [1] 19/10/2012 Grand Chamber   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12 March 2015 at the 1222nd meeting of 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”),   Recalling that, in its judgment in the case of Catan and Others , final for almost two and a half years, while observing that there was “no evidence of any direct participation by Russian agents in the measures taken against the applicants” nor “any evidence of Russian involvement in or approbation for the “MRT”‘s language policy in general”, the Court nonetheless found that “by virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the “MRT”, which could not otherwise survive, Russia incurs responsibility under the Convention for the violation of the applicants’ rights to education”; recalling further that the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses;   Reiterating its deep concern, already expressed in its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)184 , in view of the reports of a continuous violation of the applicants’ right to education, resulting from acts of intimidation and pressure affecting the functioning of the Latin script schools in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova;   Deeply deploring that, notwithstanding the repeated calls for execution of this judgment by the Committee and Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)184 , as well as the reflections carried out so far at national level including a scientific and practical round table held in Moscow on 20-21 January 2015, the Committee still has not received any information on the measures taken or envisaged by the Russian Federation to comply with the judgment;   REAFFIRMS that, as for all Contracting Parties, the Russian Federation’s obligation to abide by judgments of the Court is unconditional;   EXHORTS the Russian Federation to pay, without further delay, the sums awarded in respect of the just satisfaction in the Court’s judgment, as well as the default interest due, and to inform the Committee of Ministers when this payment is made;   STRONGLY INVITED the Russian Federation to fully co-operate with the Committee of Ministers and the Secretariat with a view to executing this judgment, in compliance with Article 46 of the Convention, and consequently firmly reiterated its call to the Russian authorities to provide as soon as possible an action plan/report detailing its strategy for the implementation of the present judgment and indicating, more particularly the steps taken and/or to be taken, and within what framework, to ensure the proper functioning of the Latin script schools in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova.   [1] Case against the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation. The European Court found no violation in respect of the Republic of Moldova.