CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 octobre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1F7521B { width:25.45pt; display:inline-block } .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)206 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 9 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)206   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 9 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 1995 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 cases of Anişoara and Mihai Olteanu, Sfrijan and Ţuluş and others, violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Basacopol and Vişan and violations of both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Cretu, Oprea and others, Bălănescu and Tripon (No. 2)).     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 Cretu (32925/96) 9/07/2002 9/10/2002 134 693 EUR/restitution 9/01/2003 27/01/2003 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants) Oprea and others (33358/96) 16/07/2002 16/10/2002 97 734 EUR/restitution 16/01/2003 20/01/2003 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants) Basacopol (34992/97) 9/07/2002 9/10/2002 154 870 EUR/restitution 9/01/2003 20/01/2003 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant) Bălănescu (35831/97) 9/07/2002 9/10/2002 13 750 EUR/restitution 9/01/2003 20/01/2003 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant) Anişoara and Mihai Olteanu (37425/03) 13/10/2009 1/03/2010 1   900 EUR 1/06/2010 27/05/2010 Sfrijan (20366/04) 22/11/2007 22/02/2008 3 000 EUR 22/05/2008 20/05/2008 Tripon (no. 2) (4828/04) 23/09/2008 23/12/2008 2   000 EUR 23/03/2009 26/03/2009 (the applicant waived interests in view of small amount) Vişan (5181/04) 23/06/2009 23/09/2009 8   828 RON et 1   000 EUR 23/12/2009 23/11/2009 Ţuluş and others (40892/04) 26/01/2010 26/04/2010   -   -   -   b) Individual measures   In the Cretu, Oprea and others, Basacopol and Bălănescu cases , the applicants received just satisfaction for pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property awarded to them by the quashed decisions.   In the Anişoara and Mihai Olteanu case, the European Court noted that after the date on which the applicants submitted their application, they won in domestic proceedings. Moreover, the applicants did not submit a claim for pecuniary damage.   In the Vişan case, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the quashing of the final decision.   In the Tripon (no.2) case, the European Court observed that the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage was not accompanied by the required supporting documents and therefore it did not award any sum on that account. It should be noted that Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal ( revizuire ) following a judgment of the European Court finding a violation of the Convention, to obtain restitutio in integrum .   In the Sfrijan case, the European Court did not award pecuniary damage, having considered that the applicant should first bring a case before the domestic courts in conformity with Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal, granted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 19 February 2009.   In the case of Ţuluş and others, the European Court did not award just satisfaction, having noted that, following the quashing of the final decision, the applicants had not returned the amounts obtained through forced execution of this decision. Moreover, the applicants did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   In the cases of Cretu, Oprea and others, Basacopol, Bălănescu, Anişoara and Mihai Olteanu, Sfrijan, Tripon (no.2) and Vişan, 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 in these cases, 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 2 December 2010 at the 1100th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies