CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)98 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Yalım and 2 other cases against Turkey   (see details in Appendix)   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 the same day by the Court to the Committee;   Recalling that the applicants’ admissible complaints in these cases concerned mainly the length of police custody and lack of effective remedy in this respect (see details in Appendix);   Whereas in these cases the Court, having taken formal note of friendly settlements reached by the government of the respondent state and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlements were based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols decided, unanimously, to strike these cases out of its list and took note of the parties’ undertaking not to request a re-hearing of the cases before the Grand Chamber;   Whereas under these friendly settlements it was agreed that the government of the respondent state would pay the applicants certain sums (see Appendix), within three months as from the notification of the judgments;   Recalling that the striking-out of a case which has been declared admissible is effected by means of a judgment which the President forwards to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance, friendly settlement or solution of the matter;   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, except in the case of Sincar and others, the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement and that no other measure was required in these cases to comply with the Court’s judgments;   Having examined the information supplied by the government of Turkey,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention with respect to the commitments subscribed to in these cases and   DECIDES to close their examination. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)98   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Yalım and 2 other cases against Turkey     Introductory case summary   The applicants’ admissible complaints in these cases concern the alleged excessive length of police custody (Article 5§3) (in all cases), lack of effective remedy in this respect (Article   5§4) (in the cases of Berk and Sincar and others) and the lack of independence and impartiality of state security court (Article 6) (in the case of Yalım).     I.   Payments and individual measures   a) Details of payments   Name and application No. Date of judgment Final on Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Paid on Yalım/ 40533/98 03/05/2007 03/05/2007       3   500 EUR 03/08/2007 Berk/ 41973/98 20/04/2006 20/04/2006       5   000 EUR 07/07/2006 Sincar and others/ 46281/99 02/02/2006 02/02/2006       9   600 EUR 02 and 03/05/2006(for two applicants) 31/08/2006 (for the third applicant)   b) Individual measures   The government paid the applicants the sums within the time-limit agreed to under the terms of the friendly settlement, except in the case of Sincar and others. In this case two of the applicants were paid within the deadline and for the third applicant the judgment was rectified on 29/06/2006. The payment was made after the deadline but the applicant renounced his claim for default interest. Therefore no further measures are required in these cases to comply with the Court’s judgments.   II.   General measures   No further undertakings are required under the terms of the friendly settlement reached by the parties. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies