CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 juin 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .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 } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s1601B0A7 { height:14.95pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s16A8B0A7 { height:14.05pt } .sA91C8AC { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sD4810C66 { width:192.75pt } .s70FE3C48 { width:139.15pt } .s81C27B22 { width:121.6pt } .s9334D7B5 { width:0.3pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)74 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Ghibusi against Romania   (Application No. 7893/02, judgment of 23 June 2005, final on 12 October 2005)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the failure to enforce a court decision delivered in May 2001, ordering the applicant’s reinstatement in her post as a private doctor’s medical assistant and enjoining the doctor to conclude an employment contract with her (violation of article 6, paragraph 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 judgment;   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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state had taken every possible measure to pay the applicant 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 by the Court in its 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   - of 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 this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)74   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Ghibusi against Romania     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the failure to enforce a court decision delivered in May 2001, ordering the applicant’s reinstatement in her post as a private doctor’s medical assistant and enjoining the doctor to conclude an employment contract with her (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court stressed that the domestic authorities did not take all the measures that could reasonably be expected of them with a view to assisting the applicant to enforce the decision.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 4800 EUR 100 EUR 4900 EUR Paid on 12/01/2006   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which she suffered due to the failure to enforce the final judicial decision ordering her reinstatement, as well as for costs and expenses. The Romanian authorities indicated that following the judgment of the European Court the applicant did not formulate any request as regards the execution of the decision ordering her reinstatement. As regards the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court, the authorities stated that, given the applicant’s refusal to open a bank account in euros, on 12/01/2006 (before the expiry of the time-limit) a delegation from the Ministry of Public Finances went to the applicant’s home to pay her the amount due. The applicant refused the payment, stating that the time-limit expired on 12/10/2005. In these circumstances, the amount has been deposited in a bank account set up in the applicant’s name and the receipt attesting the deposit was sent to her. The applicant sent the document back, asking that the payment be made at her home. She also requested the payment of default interest. The receipt is currently being kept at the applicant’s disposal by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She may ask for it to be sent to her at any time to be able to withdraw the amounts deposited in her name. The applicant expressed her disagreement with the government, considering that the payment has not been made in conformity with the Court’s judgment.   In view of the above information, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   The government considers that the violation found by the European Court resulted from the particular circumstances of the case and, therefore, no general measure would be required. Nonetheless, the judgment of the European Court was published in the Official Journal and on the internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice ( http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp ). Further, the National Union of Bailiffs was informed of the requirements of the European Convention in the context of the execution of internal courts’ decisions involving personal acts of a private party.   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no other individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that no general measures were necessary in view of the isolated nature of the violation found 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 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies