CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 13 juin 2024

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s9B8A0E71 { padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:11.35pt; 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 } .s9ECAA7E2 { height:8.1pt } .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 } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s2E49B105 { background-color:#ffffff } .sC41F0EA6 { font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2024)118 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Neshkov and Others against Bulgaria   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 June 2024 at the 1501 st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 36925/10 Neshkov and others 27/01/2015 01/06/2015   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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established on account of overcrowding, lack of hygiene and of adequate access to sanitary facility and to health care, as well as lack of effective remedies in this regard (violations of Articles 3 and 13);   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 information provided by the government, indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see documents DH-DD(2022)1043 and DH-DD(2024)368 );   Recalling that the European Court has considered that the preventive and compensatory remedies introduced in response to the present judgment can be regarded as effective;   Having noted also that the problem of overcrowding in prisons and prison hostels has been almost entirely resolved (even though the overall capacity of these penitentiary institutions has decreased) and that the material conditions of detention have been substantially improved, which facilitates the functioning of the preventive remedy, and having noted moreover that there is an increase of the amounts awarded under the compensatory remedy by the domestic courts;   Considering that substantial progress has been achieved with the execution of the present pilot judgment;   Having noted furthermore that the outstanding questions regarding the alignment of the practice of the domestic courts to the requirements of the present judgment concerning the amounts of compensation awarded and further improvement of the material conditions of detention to ensure that the preventive remedy can function properly in all situations will continue to be examined in the Kehayov case;   Having noted that the outstanding questions regarding the remaining problems related to overcrowding, mainly in investigative detention facilities, and poor material conditions of detention will also continue to be examined in the context of the Kehayov case;   Having noted that the outstanding questions concerning the specific remedies related to restrictive penitentiary regimes and the use of the general preventive remedy related to excessive isolation will continue to be examined in the Harakchiev and Toloumov case; and also, that the outstanding questions concerning health care in prison will continue to be examined in the Gavazov case;   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.