CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 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 } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .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 } .sDD7C59DF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s2E49B105 { background-color:#ffffff } .sA6138319 { margin-left:18pt; background-color:#ffffff } .s625422E3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; 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)470 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Goropashyn against Ukraine   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 December 2025 at the 1546 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 67127/16 GOROPASHYN 24/04/2025 24/04/2025   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 violation established on account of the State’s failure to provide reparation following the invalidation of the applicant’s land property title which imposed a disproportionate burden on him (violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 );   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 individual measures adopted to execute the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2025)986 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court represents the value of the property of which the applicant has been deprived;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in this judgment continues to be examined within the framework of the Maksymenko and Gerasymenko v. Ukraine group of cases also in the light of the Court’s findings in this case, and that the closure of this case therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to the lack of compensation for bona fide purchasers following the removal of their possession ;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case;   CONCLUDES that the necessary individual measures have been adopted;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures in the framework of the Maksymenko and Gerasymenko v. Ukraine group of cases;   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.