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 } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7892B1DE { margin-left:54.34pt; padding-left:17.66pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .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)253 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Deak against Romania   (Application No. 42790/02, judgment of 4 November 2008, final on 6 April 2009)     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 breach of the applicant’s right to access to a court due to the misapplication of the relevant legal provisions by the domestic courts (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 paid 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)253   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Deak against Romania     Introductory case summary   This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court caused by the domestic courts’ misapplication of the admissibility rules in proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   The applicant sought judicial review of an administrative decision establishing the amount of her retirement pension. In May 2002, the applicant’s request for review was dismissed as inadmissible at last instance, on the ground that under Law No. 3/1977 on the pension rights, in force at the material time, the administrative decision at issue was not subject to judicial review. The European Court noted however that this law had been amended in 1991 to allow the judicial review of such decisions and concluded that the applicant’s request had been erroneously rejected as inadmissible, which amounted to a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 2   500 EUR - 2   500 EUR Paid on 23/06/2009   b) Individual measures   Article 322, paragraph 9, of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation. In addition, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The government considers that the violation found in the instant case is of an isolated nature as it stems from the misapplication of the relevant procedural rules by the domestic courts and not from inadequate legislation.   In addition, it should be noted that Law No. 3/1977 was repealed and replaced by Law No.   19/2000 on the retirement rights and the new law equally provides that the administrative decisions establishing the amount of the retirement pensions are subject to judicial review.   A summary of the European Court’s judgment was published in the Reports of the European Court’s judgments between 1994 and 2009 and the judgment was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy for dissemination to all domestic courts. It should be noted moreover, that the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates.     Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, 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