CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 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 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)299 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Agrokompleks against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2020 at the 1390 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 23465/03 AGROKOMPLEKS 06/10/2011 25/07/2013 08/03/2012 09/12/2013   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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established on account of the unfairness of the proceedings due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the domestic court hearing; the excessive length of the proceedings; the quashing of a final judicial decision under newly-discovered circumstances in breach of the principle of legal certainty; and, as a result, the interference with the applicant company’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (three violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and one breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) ;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has 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 invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, in conditions accepted by the applicant company (see document DH-DD(2020)951 );   Having noted that, in respect of individual measures, the just satisfaction awarded by the Court covered both pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage and that no other individual measures are necessary;   Having noted that, in respect of the general measures, progress has been achieved in response to the Court’s judgment to resolve the issues related to review of final judicial decisions in breach of the principles of legal certainty and res judicata , in particular through the legislative measures introduced in 2010-2017, case-law developments and dissemination measures by the higher courts, the Higher Council of Justice and the National School of Judges;   Having noted the legislative, institutional and practical measures undertaken related to the reform of the system of judicial discipline and careers of judges in respect of internal judicial independence as examined within the   Oleksandr Volkov   group;   Recalling that the Committee will continue to supervise the outstanding issues related to enhancing rule of law, ensuring independence and impartiality of the judiciary as well as access to efficient justice, by guaranteeing that justice is administered without unreasonable delays, in the framework of the Oleksandr Volkov and Merit / Svetlana Naumenko groups of cases against Ukraine and that the closure of this case therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the broader general measures required;   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.