CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 9 mars 2022

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD67E8F64 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.85pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#ffffff } .sC91ABB0B { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .s9BD57404 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s5511CAC6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.67pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .sF1474A11 { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s1A8C3523 { border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sB056A3E5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sC5ECFB78 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s3C5C3DF { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s31E04105 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sE8D5B928 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s50A8AB78 { padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s1B7EF07D { margin-top:4.8pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)52 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Varnava against Turkey (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 March 2022 at the 1428 th   meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 16064/90+ VARNAVA AND OTHERS 18/09/2009 Grand Chamber The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”);   Recalling that in its judgment of 18 September 2009 the European Court of Human Rights held that Turkey was to pay before 18 December 2009, 12,000 euros per application in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of nine missing Greek Cypriots and 8,000 euros per application in respect of costs and expenses; Deeply deploring that to date, despite two interim resolutions adopted in this case, in 2013 and 2014 (jointly with the   Xenides-Arestis   group of cases), and the letters sent by the Committee’s Chairperson and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, in 2014 and 2016, the Turkish authorities have not complied with their unconditional obligation to pay the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants, on the grounds that this payment cannot be dissociated from the measures of substance in this case; Recalling that in its last interim resolution, the Committee declared that this continued refusal by Turkey is in flagrant conflict with its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe; Underling the humanitarian nature of the just satisfaction awarded in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the relatives of the missing persons concerned by this case;   FIRMLY REITERATED its insistence on Turkey’s unconditional obligation under Article 46, paragraph   1, of the Convention to pay the just satisfaction awarded by the Court; EXPRESSED PROFOUND CONCERN that prolonged delays in fulfilling this obligation not only deprive the individual victims from receiving compensation for the damages suffered by them, but also is in flagrant disrespect with Turkey’s international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe;   EXHORTED the Turkish authorities to abide by their obligations and pay the just satisfaction, together with the default interest accrued, without further delay;   DECIDED TO RESUME CONSIDERATION of this issue at the next examination of the case of   Varnava v. Turkey .