Inventory of tools allowing the Committee to react, if necessary, to situations of slowness in execution[1]

Document prepared by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the Court

       I.      Tools to compensate for slowness due to technical difficulties in the payment of just satisfaction (JS)

a.    Existing tools

a)   Preserving the value of the sums awarded – default interest

1.   If the time limit for payment of just satisfaction has been exceeded, default interest must be paid to the applicant according to the rate fixed by the judgment of the European Court (for further details, see §§ 64 ff. of public memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2008)7 reproduced in appendix.)

b)   Special section permanently accessible by internet and updated every month

2.   In 1995, the Committee of Ministers decided to identify explicitly the States that had not been able to confirm payment more than six months after expiry of the set deadline, and to ask the delegation concerned for an explanation of such a delay. Today, these cases are the object of a separate section[2] in the annotated agenda, which is public. This section, which is regularly updated, is also permanently accessible on the internet site of the Execution Department.[3]

c)   Memorandum on the payment of just satisfaction

3.   The Committee of Ministers has recently adopted and declassified a memorandum concerning questions relating to the payment of just satisfaction (see the aforementioned CM/Inf/DH(2008)7), whose aim is to present the practice currently followed by the Committee concerning supervision of payment of just satisfaction. This document is binding neither on the Committee nor on the member States. It is, however, able to bring answers to a number of technical questions to which the authorities are confronted to and which often cause delay in payment. Translated, if necessary, into the national language and disseminated to the bodies responsible for payment of just satisfaction, it is an important tool at the Committee’s disposal in this area.

d)   Assistance of the Execution Secretariat

4.   Bilateral contacts between the Department for the execution of judgments and delegations on specific payment questions often allow questions relating to the payment of just satisfaction to be resolved.

e)   Particular section intended to present special problems concerning payment of just satisfaction

5.   Section 3c. of the annotated agenda of CM-DH meetings was designed to allow the presentation (and, if necessary, the debate during CM-DH meeting) of particular problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction.

6.   The problems thus highlighted can be one-off problems. They can also be linked to the procedures foreseen by national payment mechanisms. The adoption of general measures  may then be necessary to remedy them, such as setting up a special fund allowing payment of just satisfaction as quickly as possible, with, if necessary, the subsequent possibility of seeking compensation from the body responsible for the violation to recover the sums concerned along with default interest (an idea already put into practice by certain States).[4]

b.     Possible improvements

a)   More bilateral contacts on questions of payment (between the Department for the Execution and the State concerned)

7.   The underlying reasons for a delay in payment of just satisfaction can be numerous and most often little information is available on the subject. A constructive and technical dialogue between the Secretariat and the delegation of the respondent State is often the most effective means of breaking the deadlock.

8.   Since moving from 6 CM-DH meetings per year to 4, it has been possible to intensify bilateral contacts and, in this context, the Secretariat has been able to undertake in-depth work with certain delegations, consisting of a systematic analysis of the entire list of cases awaiting payment. This analysis has allowed the pragmatic resolution of a great number of technical issues.

9.   The development of this practice would constitute an effective tool against slowness in payment of just satisfaction. It could even be envisaged to “institutionalise” the holding of regular meetings with delegations on issues of payment of just satisfaction (as is already the case with certain States), with a view to identifying the problems and resolving them as quickly as possible. The frequency of these meetings would be determined in accordance with the States and/ or the issues arising in the cases. For greater effectiveness, it would be desirable to involve in these technical meetings, insofar as possible, the “payment services” of States, according to yet-to-be-defined modalities (the delegations could invite the authorities concerned to come to Strasbourg or the Secretariat to go to the capital).

b)   Clarification of the information necessary for showing that just satisfaction has been paid

10. Certain delays can also be noted in the collection of information allowing the Committee to determine whether payment of just satisfaction has taken place in conformity with the requirements resulting from the Court’s judgment and the Committee’s practice in this area. In order to facilitate this collection, taking into account in particular the number of cases under supervision of the CM, States could be invited to standardise the presentation of such information. It is, indeed, desirable that the Committee be able to have the following elements made available to it:

- the sum paid

- if conversion is necessary, the sum paid in the national currency and/ or the exchange rate used

- the date of payment

- the name of the beneficiary of the payment

- if the payment has been made to an escrow account, evidence showing that the applicant or his/ her representative has been informed of such payment.

c)      Use of the special section (see e) above), currently fallen into disuse

11. Problems that have not been resolved at bilateral level could/ should be brought before the Committee under section 3c, or even be taken with debate during a meeting.

12. The initiative to put a case or a group of cases in this section could be taken :

- either by the Secretariat or a delegation in the light of the issues that have not been resolved during bilateral contacts,

- or by the Committee, on the basis of indications of slowness emerging from section 3B or 3Aint (for very old cases or particularly long lists of a given State which may indicate a structural problem…)

d)   Request for translation and dissemination of the memorandum on just satisfaction

13. The memorandum on just satisfaction includes a large number of practical suggestions that could help the authorities responsible for paying just satisfaction resolve questions which arise in certain cases. The value of this document has been widely recognised, notably during the Seminar on the role of government Agents that took place at Bratislava in April 2008.

14. In order to obtain the maximum benefit from this document, national authorities could be invited to translate it and disseminate it to the relevant national bodies. Indeed, such a request could constitute an excellent tool against slowness (also by way of prevention), both in the presence of a general problem of payment of just satisfaction and as a specific measure (with dissemination to the authority concerned) where a specific problem is involved. The dissemination of translations provided by the States could also be done via the internet site of the Execution Department.

    II.        Tools to compensate for slowness in the adoption of required measures[5]

a.    Existing tools

a)   Bilateral or multilateral contacts between CM-DH meetings

i)         Bilateral contacts in order to examine different ways of resolving the problems that have been identified

15. As underlined above (see § 8 above), the reduction in the number of annual CM-DH meetings has allowed intensification of bilateral contacts between the Secretariat and the delegations. During these meetings, the delegations are sometimes accompanied by representatives of the national authorities concerned. These meetings have shown themselves to be extremely productive, and when it comes to reacting to situations of slowness, they indisputably allow, in many situations, the relaunching of the execution process by clarifying the requirements resulting from the Court’s judgments and the practice of the Committee, and by providing, where appropriate, the national authorities with technical assistance in the matter.

16. Such contacts are also made, when it seems appropriate, at a higher level, with the participation of the Director of Monitoring or the Director General for Human Rights and Legal Affairs.

ii)       Technical cooperation (meeting of the Execution Department with the authorities in the capital, organisation of round tables, conferences…)[6]

17. In order to go into certain technical issues in greater depth, it can be useful to extend the aforementioned bilateral contacts by direct meetings with the national authorities in the capital. During 2007-2008, the Execution Department was invited by a certain number of States to such meetings.

18. When similar problems arise for several different States, it can also be extremely useful for those involved to share their questions and experience (see, for example, the Round Tale on non-execution of final domestic decisions, bringing together several States, organised by the Execution Department in Strasbourg in June 2007).

b)   Debates during CM/DH meetings (peer support/ pressure)

i)         Involvement of the delegations in the search for solutions to problems of slowness

19. In the framework of the exercise of collective responsibility of the Committee in the area of execution of judgments of the European Court, the member States’ governments discuss complex issues raised by Court judgments. This exercise offers a unique perspective: the issues raised today in a given case are examined on the basis of the extensive experience of other States who are or have been confronted with similar issues/problems. The solutions found by others can, whilst of course preserving each State’s freedom of choice of means, serve as inspiration and suggest possible solutions.

20. The Deputies’ debates thus offer a valuable forum for making progress with execution in blocked or problematic situations or for overcoming uncertainties as to the measures required. In order to nourish/optimise the discussions, reflection papers or summaries of the practice of the Court and/ or Committee are sometimes prepared by the Execution Department.

21. When a particular matter regularly gives rise to doubt or questions, the subject can also be discussed in a general way – under the general item “measures aimed at accelerating the execution of judgments of the Court” of the agenda of CM-DH meetings. On the occasion of such discussions, the Committee can clarify, specify, define and set out the principles of its practice, thus providing useful guidelines to authorities confronted with difficult problems. For example, in the face of the explosion in litigation concerning parental rights, the Committee initiated a reflection on the question of individual measures in this type of case, the authorities often being confronted in this area with significant difficulties (passing of time, behaviour of the parties, best interest of the child). Even if each case must, obviously, be dealt with on its own merits, the exchange on a more general level of experience and of good practices in this field may provide benchmarks that could usefully feed the reflection.

22. The guidelines that thus emerge will clearly have no binding effect, given the specificity of each case and the freedom of choice of means available to States, but they will be a valuable source of inspiration for national authorities and for the Committee (see, for example, the memorandum on just satisfaction already mentioned above).

ii)       Greater frequency of examination of a case, possibly at each CM-DH meeting

23. The Committee’s rules concerning supervision of execution propose set intervals of examination, from which the Committee can depart in its decision, if the particular circumstances of a case suggest it.[7] In the past, the decisions corresponding to the principles set out by the rules were the most frequent. With the exponential increase in the number of cases, the Committee has, however, had to individualise further its decisions to postpone, so as to adopt the most rational treatment for each case and to avoid as much as possible premature or purposeless additions to the agenda of a given meeting[8].

24. Thus, even more than in the past, the decision to include a case on the agenda more frequently, even at each CM-DH meeting, and to propose that it be debated, can apply greater pressure on a State that is delaying adoption of the necessary measures or provision of the information awaited in a given case.

iii)       Grouped debate of cases bringing to light a general problem of slowness of a State

25. When the absence of information on the measures taken or envisaged seems to affect a great number of cases relating to the same State, the Committee can request explanations on this inaction in the framework of a debate bringing together all the cases concerned.[9] Full exercise by the Committee of its collective responsibility is, in this context, as in that mentioned in paragraphs 23-24 above, a sine qua non condition.

iv)     Signals given by the Committee through decisions adopted during meetings

26. The decisions adopted by the Deputies on cases examined with debate allow the Committee to send different signals to respondent States: the Committee can deplore the absence of action and/ or information, ask more or less detailed questions or even request specific actions on the part of the national authorities.

v)       Announcement and, where appropriate, adoption of an interim resolution (aimed at, according to the circumstances, encouraging the adoption of reforms or denouncing the situation by insisting on the adoption of the necessary remedying measures)

27. A more formal means available to the Committee for expressing its concern or its requests in cases of slowness in execution consists in the adoption of an interim resolution,

-     strongly urging the national authorities to conclude reforms underway rapidly and/ or;

-     expressing for the attention of all the national authorities concerned the Committee’s concern about the established negligence/ delay, and strongly urging that measures be taken, and/ or;

-     giving indications of the execution measures expected.

Such resolutions are sometimes even adopted at the request of the delegation concerned.

vi)     Translation and dissemination of decisions and IR

28. If it seems necessary or appropriate, the Committee may request the translation of its decision or its interim resolution, and its dissemination to specific recipients.

vii)    Inclusion of the case on the agenda of an ordinary meeting/ all the ordinary meetings of the Committee

29. This is an approach very rarely used (potentially burdensome from an administrative point of view).

c)   Pressure at high level

30. Different practices can lead to pressure at high levels capable of relaunching the process of execution :

-     letters sent by the Ministers’ Deputies’ Chair to the  representatives of the respondent State and/ or meetings between the Chairperson of the Ministers’ Deputies and the representatives of the respondent State;

-     letters sent by the Committee of Ministers’ Chair to the Foreign Minister of the respondent State and/ or meetings between the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers and the Foreign Minister of the respondent State;

-     problems raised during high-level meetings.

d)     Publicity

31. Public expression by the Committee of its concerns constitutes a means of pressure that can take different forms according to the situation:

-     formal expression of concerns in the annotated agenda: in this context it should be recalled that concerns raised by the Committee of Ministers concerning delays in execution nowadays have a certain degree of publicity since, following the adoption of the new Rules in 2001, the annotated agenda, summarising the execution measures adopted in the various cases and the concerns expressed by the Committee, is now public and accessible on the Committee’s internet site. Since 2007, these notes are also permanently accessible on the on-line database of the Execution Department;

-     formal expression of concerns in the decision adopted by the Deputies and in the interim resolutions (see §§ 26 and 27 above);

-     press releases: to strengthen and give greater visibility to its means of expression, the Committee may accompany the adoption of a decision or an interim resolution by a press release;[10]

-     public declaration by the Chair in the name of the Committee[11]

-     publicising the formal expression of concerns during high level contacts (letter or meeting).

b.     Possible improvements

32. The tools available to the Committee for reacting in case of slowness in execution are numerous and varied. Possible improvements in this context relate more to the optimisation of existing tools than the putting in place of additional tools. Several avenues for reflection in this sense are proposed below.

a)   Making the CM’s action and practice in the area of execution of judgments of the European Court more visible and comprehensive

33. Certain delays in the adoption of measures can be due to a lack of clarity in what is required for the execution of a given judgment. The success of the Annual Report for 2007 and the welcome given to the draft Vademecum on execution show the needs in this area. Enhancing the visibility of execution constitutes both a reactive and preventive means in the area of slowness of execution.

34. Preparation of the Annual Report for 2008 and drafting of the future Vademecum should therefore be supported and encouraged as much as possible, along with the development of other tools serving the same purpose:

- development of the internet site and the on-line database,[12]

- translation of important CM documents (recommendations, resolutions, important decisions…),

- improvement of the annotated agenda (on the basis of issues such as the relevance and comprehensibility of the current sections, the possibility of thematic grouping, improvement of the legibility of CM documents, etc.)

b)     Developing the use of technical cooperation programmes, conferences, etc… 

35. Exchanges at technical level are worth encouraging (see §§ 15 to 18 above), since they allow:

- the expertise of staff members of the Execution Department to be made available to the national authorities directly concerned,

- the awareness of national authorities to be raised,

- or, States to share experiences and search for solutions, where several States are or have been confronted with similar problems.

Such actions can even constitute as such measures for executing a judgment (training activities, conferences aimed at a particular audience, etc…)

c)   Developing the role of the CM-DH meetings’ Chair

36. The rhythm of 4 annual CM-DH meetings, although responding to an inevitable need in view of the increase in the number of cases to address and obviously having many advantages, raises, however, the question of the capacity of the Committee to react quickly to urgent situations.

37. In this respect, a reflection could usefully be undertaken on the role of the Chair, for example in the matter of urgent individual measures. Could the Chair, in cooperation with the Secretariat, take initiatives in the matter (between two meetings of the CM-DH) in situations where a rapid reaction/ intervention is necessary?

d)     Strenghtening synergies in the area of execution

38. It must be noted that today other Council of Europe bodies or other international organisations are more and more involved in the execution of judgments of the European Court. In this respect, it is necessary, of course, to keep in mind that, by virtue of article 46 of the Convention, supervision of execution falls under the exclusive competence of the Committee of Ministers. That being said, it is also important to ensure a coherent approach and, far from weakening respective actions, enhanced synergies would allow them to be reinforced. A more in-depth reflection could be undertaken on these issues.

39. Furthermore, taking account of the difficulty and sensitivity of certain issues relating to individual measures that can delay their adoption, it is legitimate to ask whether in the Committee’s current practice the applicant is given a sufficient hearing. Likewise, as regards general measures, a reflection may be useful on the role that civil society could play in clarifying certain causes of slowness or deadlock in execution to the Committee .

40. Certainly, in view of Rule no. 9 of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of execution, the Deputies must take into consideration the applicant’s communications and those of non-governmental organisations and national institutions for the promotion of human rights. That said, the current approach appears rather passive, in the sense that submissions are exclusively spontaneous and not solicited. Could it be appropriate for the Committee, in situations of slowness, to solicit information from the applicant on his/ her individual situation or clarification from civil society on the general situation put in question by the Court’s judgment?

e)   Stabilising existing tools

42. Many developments in the Committee’s practice in the area of execution have taken place, in particular since the initiative of the Norwegian presidency in 2004 proposing new working methods, developments that are relevant in situations of slowness (see Secretariat document on indicators of slowness). Has the moment come to ask oneself whether the rules on supervision, which do not mention situations of slowness in execution, are adequate for these situations, and whether it would be appropriate to add/ clarify/ consolidate certain tools at the disposal of the Committee?

Appendix 1

Extract of the Information document of the Ministers’ Deputies on

Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just satisfaction:

an overview of the Committee of Ministers’ present practice

CM/Inf/DH(2008)7-rev of 11 March 2008

3.2 Payment outside the time limit set by the Court

3.2.1 The principle of the payment of default interest in the event of payment outside the time limit

a) The basis of the principle

64.       The general principle that, in the event that an obligation to pay a sum of money in accordance with a judgment of the European Court is not met, the value of the sums due must be preserved, has been accepted from the very earliest days of the Convention system.  In practice, prior to 1996, before any specific provision on default interest had been introduced into Court judgments, governments or other national authorities nevertheless ordinarily paid default interest in the very few cases in which payment was late[13].  Information on the subject thus appeared in the report on execution measures taken provided to the Committee of Ministers by the respondent state.  The importance of the obligation to preserve the value of the just satisfaction in the event of late payment, in particular, was emphasised by the Committee of Ministers in the context of its supervision of execution in the case of Stran Greek Refineries (1994-1997) [14].

65.       Following practical problems thrown up by the putting into practice of this general principle, however, the Committee of Ministers took the initiative so that both the Court and itself started to include specific clauses about default interest.  Such clauses were included from 1996 onwards.  The rate chosen was ordinarily the default interest rate ordinarily applied in the country concerned, it being understood that the applicant could challenge this before the Court if he or she considered the rate in force to be inadequate to preserve the value of the sums to be awarded.

66.       In its recent judgments, therefore, the Court states that “from the expiry of the [time limit] until settlement simple interest shall be payable” at a rate also set by the Court itself, usually, in current judgments “equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points"[15].  Most of the friendly settlements of which the Court takes note now also contain a clause on the payment of default interest if payment is made outside the time limit[16].

b) Implementation of the principle

67.       The default interest due according to judgments of the Court is calculated on a daily basis^[17]. If payment of the principal sum is made after expiry of the deadline for payment, default interest should be paid at the same time as the principal. This interest is “simple”, i.e. the interest does not itself entitle to further interest (compound interest).  It should also be emphasised that the period to be covered by default interest extends "from the expiry of the [time limit] until settlement"^[18], according to the formula generally used in Court judgments^[19], or from the expiry of the time limit until the sum in question is effectively paid, as recently specified in respect of friendly settlements^[20].

c) Special problems in case of revision, rectification or interpretation[21]

68.       In the following circumstances, supervision of the payment of just satisfaction may be interrupted pending a decision by the Court:

•           Revision[22]: There are many requests for revision which may influence the obligation to pay just satisfaction. They rely on the discovery after the judgment is delivered of elements which might have had a decisive influence on the obligation to pay if they had been known to the Court before it rendered judgment. In such cases, the Court delivers a new judgment in revision (for example, in case of the applicant’s death[23], or facts undermining the applicant’s quality as victim (for the purpose of the Article 34)[24] or altering the substance of the case[25]);

•           Rectification[26]: clerical errors, errors of calculation or obvious mistakes may lead to a straightforward rectification which may influence the obligation to pay just satisfaction (possible examples include mis-spelling the applicant’s name[27] or incorrectly quoting the amount requested by the applicant by way of just satisfaction[28] or even the failure through procedural omission to award just satisfaction to applicants who had requested it in due time[29]);

•           Interpretation[30]: Requests for interpretation of a judgment influencing the obligation to pay just satisfaction are very rare (for example, the question of whether the just satisfaction may be seized[31], or the place or currency of payment[32]). When examining requests for interpretation, “the Court is exercising inherent jurisdiction: it goes no further than to clarify the meaning and scope which it intended to give to a previous decision which issued from its own deliberations, specifying if need be what it thereby decided with binding force” [33].

69.       If a judgment is subject to revision concerning the obligation to pay just satisfaction, the Court in principle pronounces explicitly on the deadline for payment and on the question of default interest. Normally, the deadline is fixed at three months from the date upon which the revised judgment becomes final[34]. No problem arises at the execution stage: the Committee of Ministers follows the indications given by the Court.

70.       If a judgment is subject to rectification, legally this produces no modification of the date upon which the judgment is presumed to become final or, by the same token, of the deadline for payment – even where rectification takes place after the judgment has become final^[35] and the payment deadline is running or even expired. It would appear that unless the Court indicates otherwise, default interest should be calculated according to the wording of the rectified judgment, the purpose of this interest being to preserve the value of the just satisfaction for the applicant. However in certain specific circumstances, another solution may be required^[36]. It should nonetheless be noted that, despite rectification, states often manage to pay on time or with a minimum delay (see below).

71        With regard to interpretation, it is not easy to draw conclusions from the small number of instances in which the Court has agreed to give an interpretation of a judgment in respect of just satisfaction. In its final resolution in the case of Ringeisen, the Committee took note that ” pursuant to its obligation under Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government of Austria has executed the judgment of the Court of 22 June 1972, as interpreted by the judgment of 23 June 1973”; that is, the Committee evidently considered that the meaning and scope of the judgment had only been made definitively clear by the interpretation, and it was only from that moment that the state had been in a position to execute that part of the judgment.

72.       Finally, it may be deduced that where the Court refuses a request for revision, rectification or interpretation by the respondent state, the initial judgment remains valid and all questions of payment, including default interest, are to be assessed in relation to that judgment.

3.2.2 Relaxation of the principle in certain cases

a) Cases of negligible delays in payment

73.       Without prejudice to the authority of judgments or to the derived principle that default interest is due where payment falls outside the time limit, a certain allowance is made in practice for a delay in payment which may be described as "negligible".  In cases in which payment of the just satisfaction is made just a few days late, in fact, entitling the beneficiary to the payment of a modest amount of default interest, some states do not automatically pay the default interest due.  Notwithstanding the unconditional nature of the obligation to abide by the Court's judgments, this situation is acceptable if the applicant him or herself accepts it, i.e. if he or she foregoes entitlement to the interest concerned.

74.       Regarding what can be considered a "negligible delay", and particularly the number of days of delay or the amount of euros in interest which may reasonably be allowed, there are no formal rules; this is justified by the fact that formalisation of such a rule would mean not following to the letter the judgments of the Court.

75.       Hitherto, in practice, an allowance has been made, in particular where the default interest in principle due could be described as modest in the light of the applicant's situation.  As a general rule, the beneficiary's silence has been interpreted as renunciation of the interest only when he or she has failed to come forward by approximately one year after payment of the principal of the just satisfaction. However, if the payment of default interest is the only question of execution remaining under examination, it would appear appropriate to contact the applicant before the expiry of this time-limit to check with him / her whether monitoring of the payment of the just satisfaction can cease.

76.       A different view might be taken if the state concerned regularly paid after the time limit, which would reveal a "structural" problem.  In such a situation, the payment of default interest, even of a modest nature, might have a deterrent effect.

b) The question of the beneficiary's possible responsibility

77.       If the payment procedure is complicated, for instance by allegations that the applicant is not co-operating, some awkward questions may arise.  The obligation to abide by judgments is in principle unconditional, and the obligation to pay default interest (until the date of payment) is clearly set down in judgments. However, it may be noted that before the Committee of Ministers several states contest their legal obligation of paying default interest when the delay is clearly due to the applicant’s fault or negligence.

78.       At this stage, the Committee of Ministers has not settled the questions raised by such a position but has, instead, developed its practice concerning the measures which equate to payments, even where the applicant fails to co-operate effectively.

79.       Most of these have already been referred to above.  Thus, in cases where the beneficiary refuses to take possession of the sum awarded^[37] or does not co-operate by transmitting the information needed to make payment (bank details, in particular) within the time limit for payment laid down by the Court^[38], or where he or she cannot be found or contacted^[39], the Committee of Ministers recognizes several ways of paying just satisfaction: it is for the respondent state to discharge its liability to pay by making use of one or another of these means, in view of its national legal system^[40]: it may entrust the sum to a court^[41], place it in escrow with a private bank^[42], the national bank or Treasury^[43] or the bank for official deposits^[44], place it at the disposal of the beneficiary of the just satisfaction at a government office[45], send a cheque to the applicant^[46], send a payment warrant to the applicant^[47], pay the sum into a special account of the lawyer's (provided, if need be, that the lawyer holds power of attorney for this)^[48], etc.

80.       In many cases, this issue can also be avoided when the applicant’s behavior clearly indicates that he must be considered as renouncing to default interest (e.g. in case of negligence in submission of the necessary documentation). Should this practice be wrongly applied, it would still be possible to reopen the matter under the guidelines issued by the Deputies in 2002^[49].

Appendix 2

Latest update of the list of cases awaiting payment

Available on the Execution Department site

LIST OF CASES UNDER CONTROL OF PAYMENT AS AT 01.09.2008

The list below contains cases for which the Secretariat has not received the written confirmation of payment of just satisfaction and/or default interest or for which the transmitted confirmation is still under examination.

SECTION     3.A      :    SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT EXPIRED LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
ALB	3.A	35853/04	BAJRAMI v. Albania
AUT	3.A	38032/05	GIERLINGER v. Austria
AUT	3.A	23960/02	ZEMAN v. Austria
AZE	3.A	9852/03	HUMMATOV v. Azerbaijan
AZE	3.A	4307/04	NASIBOVA v. Azerbaijan
BEL	3.A	24731/03	BARBIER v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	34316/02	DE CLERCK v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	43542/04	DE TURCK v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	31634/03	DENEE v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	21861/03	HAMER v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	6203/04	IWANKOWSKI and others v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	20656/03	LONCKE v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	25864/04	RAWAY and WERA v. Belgium
BEL	3.A	20477/05	TILLACK v. Belgium
BGR	3.A	62540/00	ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS & EKIMDZHIEV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	68356/01	DOINOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	14134/02	GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ANATOLIY ELENKOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	53746/00	IVAN IVANOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	45116/98	KALINOVA v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	65051/01	KARAGYOZOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	76965/01	KARMO v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	38106/02	NALBANTOVA v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	61360/00	NEDELCHO POPOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	72663/01	NIKOLAY DIMITROV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	59523/00	SIMIZOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	61257/00	VASILEV AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.A	57785/00	ZLINSAT, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria
BIH	3.A	39462/03	KARANOVIC v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
CYP	3.A	21906/04	KAFKARIS v. Cyprus
FRA	3.A	15589/05	DE FRANCHIS v. France
FRA	3.A	22567/03	DESJARDIN v. France
FRA	3.A	5107/04	DJAOUI v. France
FRA	3.A	43546/02	E.B. v. France
FRA	3.A	27314/02	VALLAR v. France
GEO	3.A	30779/04	PATSURIA v. Georgia
GRC	3.A	26682/05	ALEXIOU v. Greece
GRC	3.A	27278/03	ARVANITAKI-ROBOTI and others v. Greece
GRC	3.A	34148/05	BEHAR METUSHI v. Greece
GRC	3.A	41558/04	ERGO ABEKTE v. Greece
GRC	3.A	31071/05	FILIOTI v. Greece
GRC	3.A	11536/05	Georgios PAPADOPOULOS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	29829/05	GIANNETAKI E. & S. METAFORIKI LTD AND GIANNETAKIS v. Greece

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
GRC	3.A	4983/04	GJASHTA v. Greece
GRC	3.A	35859/02	HOUSING ASSOCIATION OF WAR DISABLED AND VICTIMS OF WAR OF ATTICA and Others v. Greece
GRC	3.A	38311/02	KAKAMOUKAS and others v. Greece
GRC	3.A	6480/06	KARAHALIOS v. Greece (VII)
GRC	3.A	7865/06	KARAHALIOS v. Greece (VIII)
GRC	3.A	19331/05	KATRAMI v. Greece
GRC	3.A	2075/06	KATSIVARDELOS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	34643/05	LUAN METUSHI v. Greece
GRC	3.A	32636/05	MOSCHOPOULOS-VEINOGLOU AND OTHERS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	36525/05	ODEON CINEPLEX A.E. v. Greece
GRC	3.A	44803/04	PETROPOULOU-TSAKIRIS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	23032/05	POLYCHRONAKOS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	35178/05	POULITSIDI v. Greece
GRC	3.A	1262/05	RASPOPTSIS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	1989/05	SOGIA HELLAS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	11553/05	TSIVIS v. Greece
GRC	3.A	35522/04	Vassilios STAVROPOULOS v. Greece
HUN	3.A	1107/04	BALOGH v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	40431/04	BARNA v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	40465/04	BARNA v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	16412/05	BODON v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	44885/04	BORODY v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	25709/04	HILTI v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	26958/04	KALOVITS v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	15509/05	KOLLATH v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	23435/03	KOVACS v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	44726/04	PALLOS v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	40354/04	SARKOZI v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	19478/03	TARDI and Others v. Hungary
HUN	3.A	22657/04	TOTH v. Hungary
ITA	3.A	71175/01	DE PASCALE v. Italy
ITA	3.A	15000/03	DE RIGGI and TELESE v. Italy
ITA	3.A	64215/01	DE TRANA v. Italy
ITA	3.A	38823/04	DI CROSTA v. Italy
ITA	3.A	15011/03	Giovanna and Giuseppe RINALDI v. Italy
ITA	3.A	29222/03	GRASSO v. Italy
ITA	3.A	62876/00	ISTITUTO DIOCESANO per il SOSTENTAMENTO DEL CLERO v. Italy
ITA	3.A	4910/04	LA FAZIA v. Italy
ITA	3.A	60395/00	PAPALIA v. Italy
ITA	3.A	36818/97	PASCULLI v. Italy
ITA	3.A	15348/03	PERRELLA (n° 2)  v. Italy
ITA	3.A	37201/06	SAADI v. Italy
ITA	3.A	14983/03	SANGERMANO and DE FALCO v. Italy
ITA	3.A	77823/01	SERRILLI v. Italy
ITA	3.A	52578/99	SPADARO v. Italy
ITA	3.A	32747/02	TANGREDI v. Italy
ITA	3.A	11/04	VOTTO v. Italy
ITA	3.A	4733/04	VOTTO v. Italy
LIT	3.A	74420/01	RAMANAUSKAS v. Lithuania
MDA	3.A	32760/04	BANCA VIAS v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	32347/04	BECCIU v. Moldova

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
MDA	3.A	25238/02	BITA v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	27533/04	BUIANOVSCHI v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	40117/02	CAZACU v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	35615/06	CEBOTARI v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	13229/04	CLIONOV v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	31043/04	COGUT v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	29089/06	COLIBABA v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	34322/02	CURARARU v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	41578/05	DAVID v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	14925/03	DELIUCHIN v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	33276/03	DEORDIEV and DEORDIEV v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	17211/03	DOLNEANU v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	28700/03	FLUX and SAMSON v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	28702/03	FLUX v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	35994/03	GRIVNEAC v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	14277/04	GUJA v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	40541/04	LIPATNIKOVA and RUDIC v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	17359/04	MARCU v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	31790/03	MIZERNAIA v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	42440/06	MUSUC v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	18726/04	NADULISNEAC Ion v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	8207/06	STEPULEAC v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	35324/04	STICI v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	36305/03	TARA and POIATA v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	26103/04	TIBERNEAC Vasile v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	39835/05	TURCAN and TURCAN v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	10809/06	TURCAN v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	3817/05	URSU v. Moldova
MDA	3.A	6901/03	VITAN v. Moldova
NLD	3.A	30810/03	GEERINGS v. the Netherlands
POL	3.A	3158/06	BANASIAK v. Poland
POL	3.A	39742/05	BARANOWSKI Piotr v. Poland
POL	3.A	20005/04	BOBRYK v. Poland
POL	3.A	22755/04	CHRUSCINSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	41230/04	GORECKA v. Poland
POL	3.A	35014/97	HUTTEN-CZAPSKA v. Poland
POL	3.A	72976/01	JASINSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	12786/02	KROWIAK v. Poland
POL	3.A	25135/04	LYP v. Poland
POL	3.A	15154/03	MALIKOWSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	3500/04	NIECKO v. Poland
POL	3.A	13732/03	OSINSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	28492/04	RATUSZNIK v. Poland
POL	3.A	61967/00	SERNAWIT v. Poland
POL	3.A	28031/06	SKALSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	15363/05	SOJKA v. Poland
POL	3.A	29386/03	STANKIEWICZ v. Poland
POL	3.A	45027/06	SZWEC v. Poland
POL	3.A	1326/04	SZYDLOWSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	21695/05	TUR v. Poland
POL	3.A	12134/02	URBANSKA v. Poland

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
POL	3.A	38007/02	WARSINSKI v. Poland
POL	3.A	26110/04	WEDEKIND v. Poland
POL	3.A	33017/03	WOJCICKA-SUROWKA v. Poland
POL	3.A	14357/03	ZON v. Poland
POL	3.A	39205/04	ZWIERZ v. Poland
POL	3.A	25728/05	ZWOZNIAK v. Poland
PRT	3.A	10172/04	CAMPOS COSTA and others v. Portugal
PRT	3.A	40225/04	FELICIANO BICHAO v. Portugal
ROM	3.A	60489/00	BALANESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.A	30658/05	BEIAN v. Romania
ROM	3.A	15402/04	BELASIN v. Romania
ROM	3.A	22088/04	BRAGADIREANU v. Romania
ROM	3.A	38538/02	COHEN v. Romania
ROM	3.A	4632/03	ENGBER v. Romania
ROM	3.A	28400/04	FISCHER v. Romania
ROM	3.A	38692/05	FORUM MARITIME S.A. v. Romania
ROM	3.A	18898/02	ILUTIU v. Romania
ROM	3.A	74785/01	NASTASE-SILIVESTRU v. Romania
ROM	3.A	37513/03	PIATA BAZAR DOROBANTI S.R.L. v. Romania
ROM	3.A	26511/04	POP Valer v. Romania
ROM	3.A	38840/03	RADA v. Romania
ROM	3.A	1505/02	REINER and others v. Romania
ROM	3.A	20366/04	SFRIJAN v. Romania
ROM	3.A	9555/03	STEFANESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.A	26521/05	SUCIU WERLE v. Romania
RUS	3.A	68007/01	ALIKHADZHIYEVA v. Russia
RUS	3.A	57953/00	BITIYEVA v. Russia
RUS	3.A	69524/01	BULGAKOVA v. Russia
RUS	3.A	73219/01	FILATENKO v. Russia
RUS	3.A	1573/02	MEDOV v. Russia
SVK	3.A	33827/03	MATIA v. Slovakia
SVN	3.A	37166/02	JELENC v. Slovenia
SVN	3.A	37062/02	LEDNIK v. Slovenia
SVN	3.A	37006/02	PAVLOVIC v. Slovenia
SVN	3.A	33584/02	RAMSAK v. Slovenia
SVN	3.A	32989/02	SAKANOVIC v. Slovenia
SVN	3.A	39154/02	SRAMEL v. Slovenia
SVN	3.A	76141/01	TRATAR v. Slovenia
SWE	3.A	6301/05	THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. Sweden
TUR	3.A	47520/99	Akin BIRDAL v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	4212/02	AKINCIBASI v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	483/02	ALGUR and Others v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	33746/02	ARI and SEN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	28582/02	ASAN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	74507/01	ASLAN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	5325/02	AYGUN AND OTHERS v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	9464/02	BAKAY v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	25/02	BALCIK and others v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	41975/98	CELEPKOLU v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	4819/02	CEM v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	57103/00	CETIN AND SAKAR v. Turkey

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
TUR	3.A	28888/02	DAGLI v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	70516/01	DAGTEKIN AND OTHERS v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	53546/99	DONER v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	13021/02	ERDAL TAS v. Turkey (n°2)
TUR	3.A	17445/02	ERDAL TAS v. Turkey (n°3)
TUR	3.A	29847/02	ERDAL TAS v. Turkey (n°4)
TUR	3.A	29848/02	ERDAL TAS v. Turkey (n°5)
TUR	3.A	27719/02	ERDEN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	14166/02	ESER CEYLAN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	16163/90	EUGENIA MICHAELIDOU .... v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	66446/01	GOKTAS v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	16275/02	GULSENOGLU v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	6257/02	GUZEL (ZEYBEK) v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	57399/00	ILGUN AND OTHERS v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	40998/98	ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	68446/01	KEMAN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	31553/02	ONAY v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	31941/03	OZ v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	2209/03	OZCAN v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	40593/04	POLAT v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	20583/02	SAKIR AKKURT v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	9879/02	SEVER v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	74408/01	SUER and Others v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	1636/02	TAMAMBOGA AND GUL v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	37054/03	TOK v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	31932/03	UGUZ v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	1206/03	UYSAL and OSAL v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	61856/00	YAKUT and Others v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	5605/02	YARDIMCI AND OTHERS v. Turkey
TUR	3.A	21164/03	YILMAZ v. Turkey
UK.	3.A	12895/02	CRILLY v. the United Kingdom
UK.	3.A	61392/00	FALLON v. the United Kingdom
UK.	3.A	62868/00	HERBERT v. the United Kingdom
UK.	3.A	13229/03	SAADI v. the United Kingdom
UK.	3.A	60274/00	WOODS v. the United Kingdom
UKR	3.A	1192/04	BAKHEROV v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	16092/05	BALANDINA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	34786/03	BALATSKYY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	22750/02	BENDERSKIY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	35274/03	BLANUTSA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	20339/03	BLIDCHENKO v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	9962/05	BORSHCHEVSKAYA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	5326/04	CHECHA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	24131/03	CHUYAN v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	9956/05	DEREVENKO v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	35765/05	DEREVYANKO v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	20746/05	FEDORCHUK v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	19949/03	GLIVUK v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	9062/04	KACHANOV v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	21047/02	KISELYOVA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	12636/03	KOLNOOCHENKO v. Ukraine

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
UKR	3.A	13242/02	KONOVALOV v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	4204/03	LISNYY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	22606/04	PARINTSEV AND OTHERS v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	15002/02	SERDYUK v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	29468/04	SOKOLOVA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	41688/04	SUKHOVIY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	8878/03	VOSTOKMASH AVANTA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.A	15825/06	YAKOVENKO v. Ukraine

SECTION     3.Aint  :    SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF DEFAULT INTEREST DUE

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
ALB	3.Aint	7352/03	BESHIRI and others v. Albania
ALB	3.Aint	54268/00	QUFAJ CO. SH.P.K. v. Albania
BGR	3.Aint	56891/00	BORISOVA v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.Aint	47797/99	KEHAYA AND OTHERS v. Bulgaria
ESP	3.Aint	66990/01	SOTO SANCHEZ v. Spain
FIN	3.Aint	2511/02	AHO v. Finland
FIN	3.Aint	10615/03	MOLANDER v. Finland
FRA	3.Aint	50278/99	AOULMI v. France
FRA	3.Aint	23241/04	ARMA v. France
FRA	3.Aint	20127/03	ARNOLIN and others v. France
FRA	3.Aint	22945/02	BEAUCAIRE v. France
FRA	3.Aint	63879/00	BEN NACEUR v. France
FRA	3.Aint	49451/99	BLONDET v. France
FRA	3.Aint	60796/00	CABOURDIN v. France
FRA	3.Aint	67114/01	COORBANALLY v. France
FRA	3.Aint	37786/97	DEBBOUB alias Husseini Ali v. France
FRA	3.Aint	61517/00	F. W. v. France
FRA	3.Aint	25389/05	GEBREMEDHIN v. France [GABERAMADHIEN]
FRA	3.Aint	62236/00	GUILLOURY v. France
FRA	3.Aint	29731/96	KROMBACH v. France
FRA	3.Aint	67847/01	LECARPENTIER and other v. France
FRA	3.Aint	53892/00	LILLY FRANCE v. France
FRA	3.Aint	43640/98	MARIANI v. France
FRA	3.Aint	62740/00	MATHEUS v. France
FRA	3.Aint	68864/01	MERGER and CROS v. France
FRA	3.Aint	52206/99	MOKRANI v. France
FRA	3.Aint	37794/97	PANNULLO AND FORTE v. France
FRA	3.Aint	44081/98	PERHIRIN and Others v. France
FRA	3.Aint	40403/02	PESSINO v. France
FRA	3.Aint	58148/00	PLON (SOCIETE) v. France
FRA	3.Aint	77655/01	RELAIS DU MIN SARL v. France
FRA	3.Aint	72377/01	SARL DU PARC D'ACTIVITES DE BLOTZHEIM v. France
FRA	3.Aint	38208/03	SERIS v. France
FRA	3.Aint	40391/02	SOCIETE AU SERVICE DU DEVELOPPEMENT v. France
FRA	3.Aint	73804/01	STORCK v. France
FRA	3.Aint	39922/03	TAIS v. France
FRA	3.Aint	16616/02	VARELAS v. France
FRA	3.Aint	66018/01	VEZON v. France

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
FRA	3.Aint	62034/00	VIGROUX v. France
FRA	3.Aint	3211/05	VUILLEMIN v. France
FRA	3.Aint	35787/03	WALCHLI v. France
FRA	3.Aint	71377/01	WATT v. France
GEO	3.Aint	28537/02	"IZA" LTD and MAKRAKHIDZE v. Georgia
GEO	3.Aint	2507/03	AMAT-G Ltd and MEBAGISHVILI v. Georgia
GRC	3.Aint	39725/03	ANASTASIADIS v. Greece
GRC	3.Aint	20898/03	CHATZIBYRROS and others v. Greece
GRC	3.Aint	13320/03	DAMILAKOS v. Greece
GRC	3.Aint	36998/02	EFSTATHIOU and others v. Greece
GRC	3.Aint	11720/03	INEXCO v. Greece
GRC	3.Aint	16163/02	NASTOU v. Greece (n° 2)
GRC	3.Aint	11801/04	TSALKITZIS v. Greece
GRC	3.Aint	17305/02	ZACHARAKIS v. Greece
ITA	3.Aint	25337/94	CRAXI v. Italy
ITA	3.Aint	17482/90	D'AQUINO v. Italie
ITA	3.Aint	44446/98	DI GIROLAMO & Others v. Italy
ITA	3.Aint	37710/97	ELIA SRL v. Italy
ITA	3.Aint	55984/00	GOFFI v. Italy
ITA	3.Aint	24170/94	PESCE v. Italie
ITA	3.Aint	36732/97	PISANO v. Italy
ITA	3.Aint	44409/98	RIZZO v. Italy
ITA	3.Aint	44505/98	SHIPCARE S.R.L. v. Italy
MDA	3.Aint	53487/99	MERIAKRI v. Moldova
MKD	3.Aint	58185/00	JANEVA v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
PRT	3.Aint	48233/99	ALMEIDA DO COUTO v. Portugal
PRT	3.Aint	21240/02	COMPANHIA AGRICOLA DE PENHA GARCIA, S.A. v. Portugal
ROM	3.Aint	77195/01	ABALUTA v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	54062/00	ANDRONE v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	35831/97	BALANESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	34992/97	BASACOPOL v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	31603/03	CIOBOTEA v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	32925/96	CRETU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	70890/01	DANULESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	32743/05	DRAGOS v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	6098/03	DURDAN v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	41124/02	FILIP v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	35951/02	GABRIEL v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	18013/03	IOACHIMESCU and ION v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	42061/02	IONESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	7198/04	IOSUB CARAS v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	21118/02	KONNERTH v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	4738/04	PAIS v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	7234/03	POP v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	31442/02	RADULESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	34647/97	RUIANU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	4198/04	RUSU AND OTHERS v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	1696/03	SAVULESCU v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	58612/00	SEBASTIAN TAUB v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	13028/03	SIMION v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	31177/02	SZEKELY v. Romania

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
ROM	3.Aint	2122/04	TARBUC v. Romania
ROM	3.Aint	63945/00	WEISSMAN and others v. Romania
RUS	3.Aint	24620/02	BELYAYEV v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	14139/03	BOLAT v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	59334/00	CHITAYEV and CHITAYEV v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	53157/99	LEDYAYEVA v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	14502/04	NELYUBIN v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	14656/03	PONOMARENKO v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	19457/02	ROMANENKO and ROMANENKO v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	36045/02	SHNEYDERMAN v. Russia
RUS	3.Aint	374/03	VOLOKITIN v. Russia
SVK	3.Aint	54822/00	MICOVCIN v. Slovakia
TUR	3.Aint	34592/97	AGDAS v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	24351/94	AKTAS v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	32572/96	AYDIN v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	46649/99	GULER and Others v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	38883/97	H.B. and others v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	73739/01	KARAMAN AND BEYAZIT v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	27528/95	KIZILYAPRAK v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	47165/99	OZKAN v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	60847/00	SACIK v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	25142/94	SADAK v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	22876/93	Semsa ONEN v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	29422/95	TEPE v. Turkey
TUR	3.Aint	34506/97	TURKOGLU v. Turkey
UKR	3.Aint	41220/98	ALIEV v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	67647/01	BAKAY and Others v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	5788/02	BITKIVSKA v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	27370/03	GORDEYEVY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	63134/00	KECHKO v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	35091/02	MYKHAYLENKY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	47148/99	NOVOSELETSKIY v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	26996/03	RYBAK v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	63158/00	TIMOTIYEVICH v. Ukraine
UKR	3.Aint	14397/02	VARANITSA v. Ukraine

SECTION     3.B      :    SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
AND	3.B	69498/01	PLA AND PUNCERNAU v. Andorra
AUT	3.B	45983/99	KAPLAN v. Austria
AUT	3.B	5266/03	NIKOWITZ AND VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GESMBH v. Austria
AUT	3.B	13071/03	STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. Austria
AUT	3.B	2293/03	WIESER v. Austria
AZE	3.B	34445/04	MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. Azerbaijan
BEL	3.B	44899/98	BRICHET and BOUZET v. Belgium
BEL	3.B	46825/99	CLAES v. Belgium
BEL	3.B	27535/04	DE SAEDELEER v. Belgium
BEL	3.B	37330/02	DEFALQUE v. Belgium

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
BEL	3.B	18211/03	LENARDON v. Belgium
BEL	3.B	46046/99	MARIEN v. Belgium
BEL	3.B	40628/04	NAGLER and NALIMMO B.V.B.A. v. Belgium
BEL	3.B	19443/02	VANDAELE and VAN ACKER v. Belgium
BGR	3.B	61507/00	ANDREI GEORGIEV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	55523/00	ANGELOVA and ILIEV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	53820/00	BONEVA v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	45964/99	KAROV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	77147/01	KUYUMDZHIYAN v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	57847/00	NAVUSHTANOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	64209/01	PEEV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	51796/99	SPASOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	68490/01	STANKOV v. Bulgaria
BGR	3.B	58925/00	TOTCHEV v. Bulgaria
CYP	3.B	43151/04	Aresti CHARALAMBOUS v. Cyprus
CZE	3.B	57325/00	D.H. AND OTHERS v. the Czech Republic
CZE	3.B	23499/06	HAVELKA AND OTHERS v. the Czech Republic
CZE	3.B	25326/03	PATERA v. the Czech Republic
ESP	3.B	25779/03	SALT HIPER, SA v. Spain
ESP	3.B	55524/00	STONE COURT SHIPPING COMPANY, S.A. v. Spain
FIN	3.B	68050/01	EKHOLM v. Finland
FIN	3.B	22508/02	F and M v. Finland
FIN	3.B	36288/97	FRYCKMAN  v. Finland
FIN	3.B	45830/99	JUHA NUUTINEN v. Finland
FIN	3.B	70216/01	LAAKSONEN v. Finland
FIN	3.B	43160/98	TOIVE LEHTINEN v. Finland
FIN	3.B	40412/98	V. v. Finland
FIN	3.B	63235/00	VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. Finland
FRA	3.B	70160/01	AON CONSEIL ET COURTAGE SA and other v. France
FRA	3.B	28625/02	ARAGUAS v. France
FRA	3.B	31501/03	AUBERT ET 8 AUTRES v. France
FRA	3.B	76093/01	BARBIER v. France
FRA	3.B	53640/00	BAUCHER v. France
FRA	3.B	73893/01	BESSEAU v. France
FRA	3.B	27928/02	BROCA v. France
FRA	3.B	77240/01	CED VIANDES and Other v. France
FRA	3.B	65399/01	CLINIQUE DES ACACIAS v. France
FRA	3.B	69678/01	COSSEC v. France
FRA	3.B	44404/02	COUR v. France
FRA	3.B	2078/04	CRETELLO v. France
fra	3.B	8112/02	DE LUCA v. France
FRA	3.B	77098/01	DESRUES v. France
FRA	3.B	1513/03	DRAON v. France
FRA	3.B	38410/97	FONTAINE v. France
FRA	3.B	67881/01	GRUAIS & BOUSQUET v. France
FRA	3.B	76450/01	HOSTEIN v. France
FRA	3.B	38396/97	KARATAS et SARI v. France
FRA	3.B	50609/99	LATRY v. France
FRA	3.B	39001/97	MAAT v. France
FRA	3.B	39269/02	MALQUARTI v. France
FRA	3.B	51360/99	MARSCHNER v. France

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
FRA	3.B	68673/01	MATHIEU v. France
FRA	3.B	97/03	MENVIELLE v. France
FRA	3.B	57470/00	OUATTARA v. France
FRA	3.B	54968/00	PATUREL v. France
FRA	3.B	21324/02	PLASSE-BAUER v. France
FRA	3.B	42272/98	POTIER v. France
FRA	3.B	38718/02	POULAIN DE SAINT PERE v. France
FRA	3.B	61104/00	QUILLEVERE v. France
FRA	3.B	44568/98	R.L. and M.-J.D. v. France
FRA	3.B	59450/00	RAMIREZ SANCHEZ v. France
FRA	3.B	59584/00	RIVAS v. France
FRA	3.B	16022/02	ROUX v. France
FRA	3.B	72038/01	SAINT-ADAM and MILLOT v. France
FRA	3.B	49580/99	SANTONI v. France
FRA	3.B	59423/00	SARL ABORCAS v. France
FRA	3.B	75833/01	SCHEMKAMPER v. France
FRA	3.B	52621/99	SCHWARKMANN v. France
FRA	3.B	12106/03	SCM SCANNER DE L'OUEST LYONNAIS and others v. France
FRA	3.B	73316/01	SILIADIN v. France
FRA	3.B	70387/01	SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES PROFESSIONNELS DES PROCEDURES COLLECTIVES v. France
FRA	3.B	38287/02	VAN GLABEKE v. France
FRA	3.B	75699/01	VATURI v. France
FRA	3.B	59842/00	VETTER v. France
FRA	3.B	6253/03	VINCENT v. France
FRA	3.B	17902/02	ZENTAR v. France
GEO	3.B	71156/01	97 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses & 4 Others v. Georgia
GEO	3.B	68622/01	DANELIA v. Georgia
GEO	3.B	12979/04	GORELISHVILI v. Georgia
GEO	3.B	71678/01	GURGENIDZE v. Georgia
GRC	3.B	21449/04	CELNIKU v. Greece
GRC	3.B	199/05	JOHN v. Greece
GRC	3.B	2736/05	VASILEV v. Greece
HUN	3.B	25691/04	BUKTA AND OTHERS v. Hungary
HUN	3.B	28323/04	GOTTHARD-GAZ KFT v. Hungary
HUN	3.B	30077/03	HELIOPLAN KFT v. Hungary
HUN	3.B	13647/04	IMMOBILIA BAU KFT. v. Hungary
HUN	3.B	38329/04	SZEBELLEDI v. Hungary
ISL	3.B	31930/04	EGGERTSDOTTIR v. Iceland
ITA	3.B	56226/00	ABATE AND FERDINANDI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	41040/98	ACCIARDI & CAMPAGNA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	41806/98	ALESIANI AND OTHERS v. Italy
ITA	3.B	24691/04	ALI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64890/01	APICELLA v. Italie
ITA	3.B	41805/98	ARIVELLA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	62158/00	BERTOSSI and MARTINELLI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	25513/02	BOVA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	38746/97	BUFFALO SRL EN LIQUIDATION v. Italy
ITA	3.B	17175/02	CALICCHIO and URRIOLABEITIA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56301/00	CAMPANA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	21757/02	CAMPELLO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44341/98	CANNONE v. Italy

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
ITA	3.B	20236/02	CAPONE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44347/98	CARAPELLA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	26041/04	CASOTTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	70585/01	CECERE ENRICO v. Italy**
ITA	3.B	44350/98	CECERE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56222/00	CENTIS v. Italy
ITA	3.B	66418/01	CERUTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3649/02	CHIUMIENTO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	15535/02	CHIZZOTTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	6597/03	CIARAMELLA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	41804/98	CIOTTA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64888/01	CIVITILLO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64886/01	COCCHIARELLA v. Italie
ITA	3.B	10644/02	COLLARILE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56206/00	COLONNELLO & Others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56208/00	CONTE & Others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56202/00	CORNIA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56224/00	D'AMORE ALBA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	1595/02	DE BLASI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56217/00	DE CESARIS v. Italy
ITA	3.B	26570/04	DELLA VECCHIA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44337/98	DELLI PAOLI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56205/00	DENTE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	10347/02	DI IESO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56225/00	DI PEDE v. Italy (no. 2)
ITA	3.B	73575/01	DI PIETRO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64111/00	DOMINICI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56221/00	DONATO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	6683/03	FALZARANO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56300/00	FASCINI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44525/98	FERRARI v. Italy (no. 2)
ITA	3.B	44379/98	FINESSI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	70148/01	FODALE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56212/00	FOLLETTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	77986/01	FORTE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44349/98	FRAGNITO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3643/02	FRANCESCA Carmine v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3647/02	FRANCESCA Cosimo v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56293/00	G.M. v. Italy
ITA	3.B	35956/97	GALATA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	10756/02	GALLUCCI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44342/98	GATTUSO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44340/98	GAUDENZI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	68610/01	GAUTIERI and others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	59909/00	GIACOMELLI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	35941/03	GIANNI and Others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	27654/03	GIANVITO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56203/00	GINOCCHIO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56211/00	Giuseppe NAPOLITANO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	23901/03	GRAGNANO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	26740/02	GRANDE ORIENTE D`ITALIA DI PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI v. Italy (n° 2)

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
ITA	3.B	62265/00	GREGORI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	5941/04	HU v. Italy
ITA	3.B	23053/02	IELO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	25701/03	KOLLCAKU v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3653/02	LA FRAZIA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44334/98	LATTANZI and CASCIA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56204/00	LIMATOLA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	62157/00	LOCATELLI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56207/00	LUGNAN IN BASILE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	62094/00	MAJADALLAH v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3656/02	MARRONE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	33447/02	MARTELLACCI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	66419/01	MARTINELLI and DOTTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	43663/98	MASON and Others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44343/98	MASSIMO v. Italy (no. 1)
ITA	3.B	44352/98	MASSIMO v. Italy (no. 2)
ITA	3.B	56220/00	MASTROPASQUA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	42053/02	MATTEONI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	77156/01	MILAZZO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	7774/02	MINICOZZI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	10399/02	MORETTI Francesco v. Italy
ITA	3.B	22697/04	MORSELLI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64705/01	MOSTACCIUOLO Giuseppe v. Italy (I)
ITA	3.B	65102/01	MOSTACCIUOLO GIUSEPPE v. Italy (no. 2)
ITA	3.B	64699/01	MUSCI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	16508/04	NARANJO HURTADO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44348/98	NAZZARO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	30278/04	ORMANNI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44351/98	PACE and others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	21120/02	PANTUSO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64889/01	PARRELLA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	10180/04	PATRONO, CASCINI and STEFANELLI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	77606/01	PAUDICIO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	20662/02	PERNICI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56213/00	PIACENTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	42644/02	PICARO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64088/00	PILLA v. Italy
ITA	3.B	19321/03	PITITTO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56223/00	POLCARI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	62154/00	PRATI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56219/00	PRESEL v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44330/98	PRINCIPE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	65075/01	PROCACCINI Giuseppina and Orestina v. Italy
ITA	3.B	62155/00	PROVIDE S.R.L. v. Italy
ITA	3.B	67785/01	QUATTRONE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	62361/00	RICCARDI PIZZATI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44345/98	RINAUDO & Others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56214/00	RIPOLI v. Italy (no. 1)
ITA	3.B	56215/00	RIPOLI v. Italy (no. 2)
ITA	3.B	10427/02	RODA e BONFATTI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	30423/96	SALINI COSTRUTTORI Spa v. Italie

State	Meeting Section	Application Number	English Case Title
ITA	3.B	30961/03	SANNINO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56201/00	SARDO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	50774/99	SCIACCA v. Italie
ITA	3.B	36813/97	SCORDINO v. Italy (no. 1)
ITA	3.B	36815/97	SCORDINO v. Italy (no. 2)
ITA	3.B	43662/98	SCORDINO v. Italy (no. 3)
ITA	3.B	22689/04	SCORZIELLO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56581/00	SEJDOVIC v. Italy
ITA	3.B	56218/00	STABILE v. Italy
ITA	3.B	52980/99	STORNAIUOLO & Others v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3638/02	TAIANI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	3641/02	TAIANI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	27265/95	TERAZZI S.R.L. v. Italy
ITA	3.B	44333/98	V.P. AND F.D.R. v. Italy
ITA	3.B	29871/02	VERTUCCI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	6870/03	VITIELLO v. Italy
ITA	3.B	27394/02	ZICCARDI v. Italy
ITA	3.B	64897/01	ZULLO Ernestina v. Italy
ITA	3.B	14405/05	ZUNIC v. Italy
LIT	3.B	418/04	GECAS v. Lithuania
LVA	3.B	16657/03	A/S DIENA ET OZOLINS v. Latvia
LVA	3.B	59643/00	KAFTAILOVA v. Latvia
LVA	3.B	58822/00	SHEVANOVA  v. Latvia
LVA	3.B	65022/01	ZAICEVS v. Latvia
MDA	3.B	40663/98	ASITO v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	15084/03	BIMER S.A. v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	74154/01	BRAGA v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	39745/02	COOPERATIVA AGRICOLA SLOBOZIA-HANESEI v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	8721/05	ISTRATII v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	1115/02	MAZEPA v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	14437/05	MODARCA v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	14914/03	MOISEI v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	30303/03	NISTAS GMBH v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	6888/03	PRUNEANU v. Moldova
MDA	3.B	27568/02	UNGUREANU v. Moldova
MKD	3.B	14349/03	SALI v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
MLT	3.B	35829/03	CENTRAL MEDITERRANEAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. Malta