CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 septembre 2010

.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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s35E51398 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:12pt } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1566B8E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s22D35D7A { height:24.95pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sD34E6D70 { height:41.95pt } .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 } .s9ECAA7DE { height:8.5pt } .sB9B6B0A7 { height:16.45pt } .s1A6D6575 { height:33.45pt } .s5395D7A { height:25.45pt } .sF11CB28E { height:100.8pt } .sB88BB0A7 { height:16.95pt } .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 } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)134 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 13 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions   (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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court following applications for nullity ( recursuri in anulare ) lodged by the Procurator General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and/or of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken 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 the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)134   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 13 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions   Introductory case summary   These cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court, between 1996 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 330 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of SC Aledani SRL, violations of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 in the cases of Rada, Pop Valer and SC Sefer SA, and violations of both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 in the cases of Segal, Igna and Igna (Valea), Cornif, Colceru, SC Editura Orizonturi SRL, Puşcaş, SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA, Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL and Prodan).   I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a)      Details of just satisfaction   Name and application no. Judgment of Final on Just satisfaction - Total Payment deadline Date of payment Segal (32927/96) - 17/12/2002 (merits) - 27/07/2004 (just satisfaction) - 17/03/2003   - 27/10/2004 3,600 EUR 27/01/2005 24/01/2005 Igna and Igna (Valea) (1526/02 and 1528/02) 14/02/2008 14/05/2008 2,000 EUR 14/08/2008 13/08/2008 Cornif (42872/02) 11/01/2007 11/04/2007 162,252 EUR 11/07/2007 10/07/2007 Colceru (4321/03) 28/07/2009 28/10/2009 2,800 EUR 28/01/2010 07/12/2009 SC Editura Orizonturi SRL (15872/03) 13/05/2008 13/08/2008 45,022.93 RON and 55,000 EUR 13/11/2008 11/11/2008 Puşcaş (30502/03) 11/10/2007 11/01/2008 62,400 EUR/restitution 11/04/2008 11/04/2008 SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA (37442/03) 21/02/2008 21/05/2008 343,500 EUR 21/08/2008 21/08/2008 Rada (38840/03) 8/11/2007 8/02/2008 3,000 EUR 08/05/2008 13/05/2008 (applicant waived interests in view of small amount) Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL (9585/04) 25/11/2008 25/02/2009 6,500 EUR 25/05/2009 21/05/2009 Prodan (26071/04) 17/01/2008 17/04/2008 6,300 EUR 17/07/2008 29/07/2008 (applicant waived interests in view of small amount) Pop Valer (26511/04) 13/12/2007 13/03/2008 5,856 RON (to be adjusted with the inflation rate as of the dates the authorities seized each monthly instalment until payment of the full amount ) and 1,000 EUR 13/06/2008 13/08/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant) S.C. Sefer S.A. (27784/04) 7/02/2008 7/05/2008 2,000 EUR 07/08/2008 16/09/2008 (applicant waived interests in view of small amount) S.C. Aledani SRL (28874/04) 26/05/2009 26/08/2009 2,500 EUR 26/11/2009 08/10/2009   b) Individual measures   In the case of Segal , the European Court observed that under Law No. 10/2001, the applicant had recovered the property of which she had been deprived through the quashing of the final decision. In addition, the Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage.   In the cases of Cornif, Colceru, SC Editura Orizonturi SRL, SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA , Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL, Prodan and Pop Valer, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the quashing of the final decisions.   In the Puşcaş case , the applicant received just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property awarded to him by the quashed decision.   In the cases of Igna and Igna (Valea), Rada and SC Sefer SA, the European Court observed that the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage were not quantified and therefore it did not award any sum on that account. In the case of SC Aledani SRL, the European Court did not award any sum in respect of the alleged pecuniary damage, having noted that the applicant had not suffered any actual pecuniary damage as a consequence of the quashing of the final decision. With respect to these cases, it should be further noted that Article 322, paragraph 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal ( revizuire ) following a European Court’s judgment finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum .   In all cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.   Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The government referred to the measures that had been taken to avoid new, similar violations, as set out in Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 (in particular the fact that Articles 330 and 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure were repealed by Article 1 §17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28/06/2003, which received parliamentary approval on 25/05/2004).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies