CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8A75A232 { font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .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 } .s78A86173 { text-decoration:underline; color:#000000 } .s80039844 { font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sFAC29D8B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s30AC1F85 { font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)105 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Bekir-Ousta and Others group against Greece   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 June 2021 at the 1406 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Case Judgment of Final on 35151/05 BEKIR-OUSTA AND OTHERS 11/10/2007 11/01/2008 34144/05 EMIN AND OTHERS 27/03/2008 01/12/2008 26698/05 TOURKIKI ENOSI XANTHIS AND OTHERS 27/03/2008 29/09/2008   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”),   Noting that the present cases concern violations of the applicants’   right to freedom of association (Article 11), in particular due to the domestic courts’ rulings not to register their associations in Bekir-Ousta and Others and Emin   and Others , and a decision leading to the dissolution of their association in Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others for reasons criticised by the Court as non-compliant with the Convention;   Recalling that following the decision CM/Del/Dec(2017)1280/H46-13 , on 10 October 2017, amendments were adopted to the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed the applicants to request reopening of the proceedings before domestic courts;   Recalling also that, according to the Court’s case-law, such proceedings are an important aspect of the execution of its judgments and their existence demonstrates a Contracting State’s commitment to the Convention and the Court’s case-law ( Bekir-Ousta and Others, Application No. 35151/05 (dec) 1.12.2016, §   25)   Reiterating its concern that the re-opening of the proceedings initiated by the applicants are still pending, that the Court of Cassation hearing of 16 October 2020 in Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis took place two years after the lodging of the appeal and that no decision has been rendered yet; also noting that the Court of Cassation hearing of the appeals lodged by the applicants in Bekir-Ousta and Others and Emin and Others which had been scheduled for 18 March 2022 has now been brought forward to 1 October 2021.   With regard to general measures that may have an impact on the individual measures in these cases, reiterating with deep concern, that domestic courts have rejected a similar application of an association contrary to the principles set out in the Court’s judgments in these cases and that this association appears to remain unregistered today, took note of the latest information provided by the authorities, in reply to the Committee’s decisions, concerning the wide dissemination and awareness-raising among legal professionals concerning the Court’s judgments, including their translation and online publication on widely-accessed legal websites, the 2020 public conferences and Parliament’s meeting and debate focusing on the execution of the Court’s judgments, and the training on the European Convention on Human Rights provided by the National School of Judges;   REITERATED its deep concern that 13 years after the European Court’s judgments, and seven years since the adoption by the Committee of Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)84 , the applicants’ applications have still not been re-examined by domestic courts on their merits in the light of the Court’s case ‑ law;   UNDERLINED that a contracting State’s obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to fully and effectively comply with the Court’s judgments through the adoption of timely measures extends to the interpretation by domestic courts of domestic legislation;   EXHORTED the authorities to ensure that the outstanding appeals in Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others, Bekir-Ousta and Others and Emin and Others are decided by the Court of Cassation promptly and in full and effective compliance of Article 11 of the Convention and the Court’s case ‑ law, and invited the authorities to inform the Committee rapidly about the outcome of these proceedings;   ENCOURAGED the authorities to continue their efforts concerning awareness-raising of the European Convention and the Court’s case-law among legal professionals, notably judges, and to also draw on any resources offered by the Council of Europe, such as the HELP (Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals) Programme so that domestic case-law is fully and effectively aligned with the Court’s judgments;   While awaiting the decision of the Court of cassation on the appeal examined in October 2020, DECIDED to resume consideration of this group of cases at the 1411 th meeting (September 2021) (DH).