CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 mars 2011

.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 } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)17 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 7 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 Prosecutor General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 in all cases and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in 5   cases) (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 judgments (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(2011)17   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 7 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 Prosecutor General under Article 330 and Article 330 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in the cases of Daniel and Niculina Georgescu and Bindea and violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Todorescu, Fischer, Sersescu, Licu and Urbanovici).     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 Todorescu (40670/98) 30/09/2003 30/12/2003 55 000 EUR/ restitution 30/03/2004 11/12/2007 (see details below) Fischer (28400/04) 11/10/2007 11/01/2008 102 000 EUR/ restitution 11/04/2008 25/04/2008 (payment of just satisfaction) 30/05/2008 (payment of default interest) Sersescu (10230/05) 08/01/2009 08/04/2009 95 000 EUR/ restitution 08/07/2009 24/07/2009 and 10/08/2009 (payment of just satisfaction) 06/10/2009 (payment of default interest) Licu (35077/02) 04/03/2008 04/06/2008 - - - Urbanovici (24466/03) 23/09/2008 23/12/2008 - - - Daniel and Niculina Georgescu (2367/04) 27/01/2009 27/04/2009 6 000 EUR 27/07/2009 23/07/2009 Bindea (32297/04) 05/05/2009 05/08/2009 2   000 EUR 05/11/2009 05/11/2009   b) Individual measures   In the Todorescu, Fischer and Sersescu cases , the respondent state was to return the property at issue to the applicants. Failing such restitution, the state was to pay the applicants within the same deadlines the sums corresponding to the value of the property.   The applicants in the Todorescu case agreed to waive payment of the just satisfaction pending the outcome of the recovery proceedings, the contested property having in the meantime been sold by the state to the sitting tenants. On 15/11/2007 and 17/01/2008, the authorities indicated that the proceedings ended on 19/02/2007 with a final decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice rejecting the applicant’s request for the return of her property. Consequently, on 25/04/2007, the Agent of the Government requested the applicant to submit the necessary documents for making the payment of the sums mentioned in the European Court’s judgment. Given the applicant’s refusal to submit the requested documents and in view of her persisting in claiming the restitution of the apartment at issue, the Agent of the Government decided to place the sums in escrow in the applicants’ names. The sums were thus assigned on 11/12/2007 and the acknowledgements of receipt in original and the copies of the payment orders were sent to the applicant on 07/01/2008.   In the Fischer and Sersescu cases, the Romanian authorities paid just satisfaction for pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the property at issue.   In the Licu and Urbanovici cases, the European Court did not award just satisfaction, having noted that the applicants submitted no claim in this respect. With respect to these cases, 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 European Court judgment finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum . The applicants lodged extraordinary appeals before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The extraordinary appeal lodged by the applicant in the Licu case was granted on 14 October 2009, while that lodged by the applicant in the Urbanovici case is pending.   In the Daniel and Niculina Georgescu and Bindea cases, the European Court did not award pecuniary damage, having considered that the applicants should first bring a case before the domestic courts in conformity with Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   In the cases of Todorescu, Fischer, Sersescu, Daniel and Niculina Georgescu and Bindea, 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 10 March 2011 at the 1108th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies