CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 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 } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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)245 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 8 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 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)245   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 8 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 2002 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 330 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of SC Vălie Prod SRL, violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Simion and violations of both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Gâgă, Konnerth, Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL, Raicu, Stoişor and others and Şerbănescu).   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 Gâgă (42792/02) 7/02/2008 7/05/2008 3   550 EUR 7/08/2008 4/11/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants) Konnerth (21118/02) 12/10/2006 12/01/2007 49   200 EUR/restitution 12/04/2007 25/04/2007 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant) Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL (37513/03) 4/10/2007 4/01/2008 446   535 EUR 4/04/2008 11/04/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant) Raicu (28104/03) 19/10/2006 19/01/2007 37   100 EUR/restitution 19/04/2007 28/03/2007   SC Vălie Prod SRL (23507/04) 23/03/2010 4/10/2010 2   115 EUR 4/01/2011 14/12/2010 Simion (13028/03) 14/12/2006 14/03/2007 40   200 EUR/restitution 14/06/2007 10/07/2007(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant) Stoişor and others (16900/03) 7/04/2009 7/07/2009 486   700 EUR 7/10/2009 9/10/2009 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants) Şerbănescu (33945/04) 7/02/2008 7/05/2008 577   500 EUR/restitution 7/08/2008 14/10/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)   b) Individual measures   In the Konnerth, Raicu, Simion, Stoişor and others and Şerbănescu cases, the applicants received just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property awarded to them by the quashed decisions.   In the Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL 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 Gâgă case, the European Court did not award just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, having noted that the applicants did not submit a claim to this end. In this case, 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 by the European Court finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum .   In the SC Vălie Prod SRL case, the European Court did not award just satisfaction in respect of 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.   In all cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of 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 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 had been 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 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies