CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 mars 2021

.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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCEF2C954 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)48 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Six cases against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 March 2021 at the 1398 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 33015/06 VOSKOBOYNIKOV 05/10/2017 05/10/2017 43104/04 NEDILENKO AND OTHERS 18/01/2018 18/01/2018 23543/02 VOLOKHY 02/11/2006 02/02/2007 12451/04 VLADIMIR POLISHCHUK AND SVETLANA POLISHCHUK 30/09/2010 21/02/2011 17318/06 RATUSHNA 02/12/2010 02/03/2011 41716/06 GOLOVAN 05/07/2012 05/10/2012   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 these cases and to the violations established on account of various irregularities related to searches and seizure, to interception of correspondence and to searches in lawyers’ premises, as well as the absence of effective remedies (violations of Article 8, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention);   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 plan provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2021)39 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was therefore resolved in these cases, given that the interference having given rise to the violations had stopped prior to the Court’s judgments: -           in the Volokhy case when the interception of correspondence (which was not retained) ended; -           in the cases of Nedilenko and Others , Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk , Ratushna when the search ended; and -           in the Nedilenko and Others case with the return of seized property;   Noting further that no further measures are necessary in the case of Voskoboynikov , as the applicant did not initiate proceedings in light of the findings of the Court even though remedies are now available to do so;   Noting with regret that no further individual measures are materially possible in the Golovan case;   Noting with satisfaction the overall progress made in respect of the general measures including changes to the legislative frameworks -           improving the rules and procedural safeguards governing the conduct of searches and seizures, strengthening both judicial control and rules of admissibility of evidence; -           establishing remedies for third parties to criminal proceedings in case of seizure of property; -           introducing procedural safeguards including judicial control and time-limits for the interception of correspondence/communications; -           governing procedural safeguards for searches on lawyers’ premises, such as the required prior notification of the Regional Bar Council and the presence of its representative;   Recalling that the question of the general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in these judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Koval and Others group of cases and noting that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures which remain outstanding;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.