CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 octobre 2022

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sCC5C9D73 { letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1A61A404 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)282 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Four cases against Türkiye   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 2022 at the 1446 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 6289/02 FAZIL AHMET TAMER 05/12/2006 05/03/2007 73520/01 KEPENEKLİOĞLU 23/01/2007 23/04/2007 77097/01 EKİNCİ AND AKALIN 30/01/2007 30/04/2007 1004/03 BARMAKSIZ 02/03/2010 02/06/2010   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 unjustified interferences by the prison authorities with prisoners’ correspondence with their lawyer (Article 8), as well as the lack of a public hearing and the lack of involvement of a lawyer during disciplinary proceedings (Article 6);   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 (see document DH-DD(2022)706 );   Having noted the adoption of the Law on the Enforcement of Sentences and Security Measures (Law no.   5275) on 1 June 2005 and the adoption of the “Regulation on the Management of the Prisons and Enforcement of Sentences and Security Measures on 28 March 2020, providing rules on monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence with their lawyers (“the Prison Regulation”);   Having also noted that the applications in these cases were lodged with the Court between 2001 and 2003 and that none of them concerns the application of the Law no. 5275 or the Prison Regulation;   Having noted that the issues concerning the lack of public hearing and conduct of disciplinary proceedings in the absence of a lawyer in the case of Barmaksız (1004/03) have been examined under the Gülmez case which was closed (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)39 );   Having noted that the outstanding questions related to the implementation of the Law No. 5275 or the Prison Regulation on prisoners’ correspondence with their lawyers continue to be examined within the framework of the remaining cases in this group, namely Eylem Kaya , Sarıgül , Mehmet Ali Ayhan and Others , İnan and Kale, and that the closure of the present cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s continuing evaluation of the general measures required in respect of the above mentioned issues;   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof.