Document setting out the measures taken and / or envisaged by the respondent State to implement a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, together with an indicative timetable.

​​​ Guide for the drafting of action plans/reports for the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Report transmitted to the Committee of Ministers by the respondent State setting out all the measures taken to implement a judgment of the European Court and / or the reasons for which no additional measure is required.

​​​ Guide for the drafting of action plans/reports for the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Judgment by which the Court seek to provide assistance to the respondent State in identifying the sources of the violations established and the type of individual and / or general measures that might be adopted in response. Indications related to individual measures can also be given under the section Article 41.

Generic term referring to a judgment (or a decision) of the European Court.

 HUDOC database

Case for which the classification - under standard or enhanced supervision – is still to be decided by the Committee of Ministers.

Committee of Ministers’ decision determining the supervision procedure – standard or enhanced.

Case in which the Committee of Ministers adopted a final resolution stating that it has exercised its functions under Article 46 § 2 and 39 § 4 of the Convention, and thus closing its examination of the case.

 Cases closed by the Committee of Ministers

When the European Court awards just satisfaction to the applicant, it indicates in general a deadline within which the respondent State must pay the amounts awarded; normally, the time-limit is three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final.

  Payment information

Meetings of the Committee of Ministers specifically devoted to the supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court. If necessary, the Committee may also proceed to a detailed examination of the status of execution of a case during a regular meeting.

 Meetings of the Committee of Ministers

Supervision procedure for cases requiring urgent individual measures, pilot judgments, and judgments revealing important structural and / or complex problems as identified by the Court and / or by the Committee of Ministers, and interstate cases. This procedure is intended to allow the Committee of Ministers to closely follow progress of the execution of a case, and to facilitate exchanges with the national authorities supporting execution.

 The supervision process

Judgment which has to be executed by the respondent State under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. A Chamber judgment (panel of 7 judges) becomes final: immediately if the parties declare that they will not request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court, or three months after its delivery to ensure that the applicant or the respondent State have the possibility to request the referral, or when the Grand Chamber rejects the referral’s request. When a judgment is delivered by a committee of three judges or by the Grand Chamber, it is immediately final.

Committee of Ministers’ decision whereby it decides to close the supervision of the execution of a judgment, considering that the respondent State has adopted all measures required in response to the violations found by the Court.

 Final resolutions adopted

Agreement between the applicant and the respondent State aiming at putting an end to the application before the Court. The Court approves the settlement if it finds that respect of human rights does not justify maintaining the application. The ensuing decision is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers which will supervise the execution of the friendly settlement’s terms as set out in the decision.

Measures that the respondent States’ authorities have to take to prevent similar violations to those found by the Court or put an end to continuing violations. The adoption of general measures can notably imply a change of legislation, of judicial practice or practical measures such as the refurbishing of a prison or staff reinforcement, etc. The obligation to ensure effective domestic remedies is an integral part of general measures (see notably Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2004)6).

When several cases under the Committee of Ministers’ supervision concern the same violation or are linked to the same structural or systemic problem in the respondent State, the Committee may decide to group the cases and deal with them jointly. The group usually bears the name of the first judgment submitted to the Committee for supervision of its execution. If deemed appropriate, the grouping of cases may be modified by the Committee, notably to allow the closure of certain cases of this group dealing with a specific structural problem which has been resolved (partial closure).

Measures that the respondent States’ authorities must take to erase, as far as possible, the consequences of the violations for the applicants - restitutio in integrum. Individual measures include for example the reopening of unfair criminal proceeding or the destruction of information gathered in breach of the right to private life, etc.

Form of decision adopted by the Committee of Ministers aimed at overcoming more complex situations requiring special attention.

Case where the violations found appear closely linked to specific circumstances, and does not require any general measures (for example, bad implementation of the domestic law by a tribunal thus violating the Convention).

When the Court considers, under Article 41 of the Convention, that the domestic law of the respondent State does not allow complete reparation of the consequences of this violation of the Convention for the applicant, it can award just satisfaction. Just satisfaction frequently takes the form of a sum of money covering material and / or moral damages, as well as costs and expenses incurred.

Case which has been identified as revealing new structural and / or systemic problems, either by the Court directly in its judgment, or by the Committee of Ministers in the course of its supervision of execution. Such a case requires the adoption of new general measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

Expression referring to a judgment of the Court that became final during the calendar year and was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for supervision of its execution.

Case currently under the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of its execution.

When the Court identifies a violation which originates in a structural and / or systemic problem which has given rise or may give rise to similar applications against the respondent State, the Court may decide to use the pilot judgment procedure. In a pilot judgment, the Court will identify the nature of the structural or systemic problem established, and provide guidance as to the remedial measures which the respondent State should take. In contrast to a judgment with mere indications of relevance for the execution under Article 46, the operative provisions of a pilot judgment can fix a deadline for the adoption of the remedial measures needed and indicate specific measures to be taken (frequently the setting up of effective domestic remedies). Under the principle of subsidiarity, the respondent State remains free to determine the appropriate means and measures to put an end to the violation found and prevent similar violations.

Letter sent by the Department for the Execution of Judgments to the authorities of the respondent State when no action plan / report has been submitted in the initial six-month deadline foreseen after the judgment of the Court became final.

Case relating to a structural and / or general problem already raised before the Committee in the context of one or several leading cases; repetitive cases are usually grouped together with the leading case.

Supervision procedure applied to all cases except if, because of its specific nature, a case warrants consideration under the enhanced procedure. The standard procedure relies on the fundamental principle that it is for respondent States to ensure the effective execution of the Court’s judgments and decisions. Thus, in the context of this procedure, the Committee of Ministers limits its intervention to ensuring that adequate action plans / reports have been presented and verifies the adequacy of the measures announced an / or taken at the appropriate time. Developments in the execution of cases under standard procedure are closely followed by the Department for the Execution of Judgments, which presents information received to the Committee of Ministers and submits proposals for action if developments in the execution process require specific intervention by the Committee of Ministers.

A case can be transferred by the Committee of Ministers from the standard supervision procedure to the enhanced supervision procedure (and vice versa).

Declaration submitted by the respondent State to the Court acknowledging the violation of the Convention and undertaking to provide adequate redress, including to the applicant. The Committee of Ministers does not supervise the respect of undertakings formulated in a unilateral declaration. In case of a problem, the applicant may request that its application be restored to the Court’s list.

Judgment on the merits rendered by a Committee of three judges, if the issues raised by the case are already the subject of “well-established case-law of the Court” (Article 28 § 1b).