CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 septembre 2020

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s211664BF { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sDDB50A14 { color:#ff0000 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF103390E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)183 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Catan and Others group against Russian Federation   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 September 2020 at the 1377bis meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 43370/04+ CATAN AND OTHERS [1] 19/10/2012 Grand Chamber 30003/04 BOBEICO AND OTHERS [2] 23/10/2018 23/10/2018   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”),   Underlining that, in its judgments in above cases, the former being final for almost eight years, the Court, whilst 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”, 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’ right to education”;   Insisting on the fundamental importance of primary and secondary education for each child’s personal development and future success and on the applicants’ right to continue to receive education in the language of their country, which is also their mother tongue, without hindrance or harassment;   Deeply deploring that 16 years have passed since the first violations occurred and despite the adoption in 2012 of a final judgment with regard to those violations, the victims still have not benefitted from any form of redress for the violations incurred, including the payment of just satisfaction;   Reiterating its deep concern, already expressed in its Interim Resolutions CM/ResDH(2014)184 , CM/ResDH(2015)46 and CM/ResDH(2015)157 , in view of the reports of continuous and systematic violations with regard to the functioning of the Latin script schools in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova;   Deeply deploring that, notwithstanding the repeated calls for execution of the Catan and others judgment by the Committee and the above Interim Resolutions, the Committee still has not received any information on the concrete measures taken or envisaged by the Russian Federation to unconditionally comply with the judgment   While noting the explanations given by the Russian authorities as regards their efforts to reach a common understanding as to the scope of the execution measures flowing from these judgments, the Committee underlined that the explanations provided cannot be construed as measures towards the execution of the judgments of the European Court;   NOTED WITH DEEP REGRET that, while nearly eight years have passed since the Catan and Others judgment was delivered, the Russian authorities failed to arrive to an acceptable response as to the execution of this judgment and the Committee’s call on them to present an action plan setting out the concrete measures to execute the judgments in this group;   REITERATED WITH FIRM INSISTENCE the unconditional obligation of every respondent State, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by final judgments in cases to which it is a party;   STRONGLY URGED the Russian authorities to pay the just satisfaction and default interest owing to the applicants without further delay and to provide an action plan setting out their concrete proposals as regards the execution of the judgments in this group in time for the Committee’s next examination;   DECIDED to resume consideration of this group of cases at its DH meeting in March 2021. [1] Case against the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova but the European Court found no violation in respect of the Republic of Moldova. [2] Case against the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova but the European Court found no violation in respect of the Republic of Moldova.