CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 décembre 2025

.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 } .s3BC382CB { margin-left:12.5pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s976DE78A { height:12.8pt } .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 } .sD81AB0A7 { height:11.35pt } .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 } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .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 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)393 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Two cases against Romania   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2025 at the 1545 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 22088/04 Bragadireanu 06/12/2007 06/03/2008 43079/02 MARCU 26/10/2010 11/04/2011   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 of the Convention established on account of overcrowding and poor material conditions of detention, as well as the lack of effective remedies in this respect (Article 3 alone and taken together with Article   13), the excessive length of criminal proceedings in the case of Bragadireanu (Article 6 § 1) and the automatic ban on exercising parental rights due to the applicant’s imprisonment and lack of effective remedy in this respect, in the case of Marcu (Article 8 alone and taken together with Article 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 action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to execute the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2025)1197 );   Recalling that the Committee, at its previous examinations, has already noted that no further individual measures are required in these cases, in which the just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid, the applicants have ceased serving their prison sentences, and all the other violations had ended by the time of the judgments;   Welcoming the tangible progress achieved as regards general measures, in particular in making available new facilities to accommodate prisoners and improving the other material conditions of detention, the measures taken to combat reoffending and support social reintegration, and the development of domestic remedies ensuring speedy reaction and redress for complaints concerning inadequate conditions of detention;   Having regard to the authorities’ continuing commitment to remedy the longstanding structural deficiencies revealed by these cases;   Recalling that the Committee continues to follow the outstanding general measures concerning the conditions of detention in the framework of the Rezmiveș and Others (No. 61467/12) pilot judgment;   Noting that the closure of the present cases does not in any way prejudge the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures concerning these issues;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases;   CONCLUDES that the question of individual measures was resolved;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the outstanding general measures concerning the conditions of detention in the framework of the Rezmiveș and Others (No.   61467/12) pilot judgment;   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.