CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 septembre 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s3CC4D07E { font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)334 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Monory against Romania and Hungary   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 September 2018 at the 1324 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 71099/01 MONORY 05/04/2005 05/07/2005   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 transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation of Article 8, with regard to Romania, due to the Romanian authorities’ failure to properly implement the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “the 1980 Hague Convention”) in proceedings carried out between 1999 and 2004; having also regard to the violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, with regard to Hungary, due to the excessive length of proceedings for divorce and child custody carried out before the Hungarian courts between 1999 and 2004;   Recalling the respondent States’ obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which they have been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having examined the action report provided by the government of Romania indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgment (see document DH-DD(2018)597 ) and the information provided by the governments of both respondent States regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court;   Noting, that the proceedings at the origin of this case had been concluded by the time the Court gave the judgment and considering that no further individual measure is required in this case ;   Noting, as regards the general measures, the wide-ranging awareness-raising measures adopted by the Romanian authorities to ensure the proper implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention by the domestic courts and the information showing that these courts have aligned their practice with the requirements of this Convention; noting further that the outstanding question related to the application of the 1980 Hague Convention, namely the excessive length of the proceedings for return of wrongfully removed or retained children brought under this Convention, continues to be examined in the case of Ferrari v. Romania;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgment in respect to Hungary continues to be examined within the framework of the Gazsó v. Hungary group of cases and that the closure of this case therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to the excessive length of judicial proceedings;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.