CASE OF BALAKIN AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 22 OTHER CASES

Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)144
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
23 cases against Republic of Moldova
 
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 June 2019 at the 1348th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
 
 Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
59474/11
BALAKIN
26/01/2016
26/04/2016
23755/07
BUZADJI
05/07/2016
Grand Chamber
23393/05
CASTRAVET
13/03/2007
13/06/2007
72238/14
COTEȚ
23/10/2018
23/10/2018
7753/13
CUCU AND OTHERS
10/07/2018  
10/07/2018  
55792/08
FERARU
24/01/2012
24/04/2012
20289/02
GUŢU
07/06/2007
07/09/2007
36988/07
IGNATENCO
08/02/2011
08/05/2011
13150/11
IURCOVSCHI AND OTHERS
10/07/2018  
10/07/2018  
50717/09
LEVINTA No. 2
17/01/2012
17/04/2012
43038/13
MĂTĂSARU AND SAVIȚCHI
10/07/2018
10/07/2018
14437/05
MODARCA
10/05/2007
10/08/2007
47306/07
NINESCU
15/07/2014
15/10/2014
50473/11
PAȘA
15/05/2018
15/05/2018  
1649/12
RIMSCHI
13/01/2015
13/04/2015
20546/16
SECRIERU
23/10/2018
23/10/2018
52053/15
SIRENCO
15/01/2019
15/01/2019
35324/04
STICI
23/10/2007
23/01/2008
4834/06
STRAISTEANU AND OTHERS
07/04/2009
24/04/2012
07/07/2009
24/09/2012
34382/07
TRIPĂDUŞ
22/04/2014
22/07/2014
39835/05
TURCAN AND TURCAN
23/10/2007
23/01/2008
679/13
VERETCO
07/04/2015
07/07/2015
3817/05
URSU
27/11/2007
27/02/2008
 
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 mainly on account of the lack of relevant and sufficient reasoning of detention orders, lengthy examination of the lawfulness of detention, refusals by the domestic courts to allow the applicants access to the case files and to hear evidence from defence, and the lack of remedy to obtain compensation in respect of unlawful detention or insufficient amount of compensation (violations of Articles 5);
 
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 individual measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see documents DH-DD(2014)232, DH-DD(2014)1147, DH-DD(2015)1057, DH-DD(2017)736, DH-DD(2018)353, DH-DD(2019)433);
 
Considering that the question of individual measures has been resolved, given that the just satisfaction has been paid and that none of the applicants is detained pending trial, and given that all necessary individual measures have also been taken in respect of other violations found by the Court;
 
Considering further the general measures adopted to address violations of Article 5 § 1 on account of insufficient compensation awarded by the domestic courts, Article 11, and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8, which appear capable of preventing similar violations from occurring in the future;
 
Recalling that the question of the outstanding general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in the present judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the Sarban group (Application No. 3456/05) and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required in relation to the violations of the applicants’ rights to liberty and security;
 
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and
 
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy