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 } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8D9AE249 { margin-left:14.75pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s9BC8888 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:12pt } .s444C90EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:12pt } .sF9A6C072 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:12pt } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s64B1589E { width:19.33pt; display:inline-block } .s29B76A2D { width:17.99pt; 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 } .s40216698 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s116BEA21 { font-size:8pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)258 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bartos against Romania     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”) [2] ,   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;   Case name (App. No.) Judgment of Final on Bartos (12050/02) 20 July 2006 20 October 2006   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 as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;   Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see appendix);   Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;     DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)258   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Bartos against Romania   Action Report Bartoş v. Romania (Application No. 12050/02, judgment of 20 July 2006, final on 20 October 2006)   I.   Introductory case summary   This case concerns the annulment by the Supreme Court of Justice, in 2002, of a final judgment, following an application for nullity by the Procurator General under Articles 330 and 3301 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1).   II.   Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Where pecuniary damage is concerned, it should be pointed out that the decision subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the applicant’s tenants to pay her certain sums, which were effectively received by the applicant. Following the annulment of this judgment, it was the applicant who was ordered to pay certain sums to the tenants. Since the forced execution procedure against the applicant was discontinued following the Court’s judgement, the Government considers that no negative consequence of the violation found remains for the applicant.   Furthermore, it should be noted that, following the judgement of the European Court, the applicant lodged, in November 2010, an application for review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2002 which had annulled the final judgement delivered in her favour. The High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed her application and, in a final judgement of 22 June 2011, annulled the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2002.   III.   General measures   The government referred to the measures that had been taken to avoid 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 June 2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28 June 2003, which received parliamentary approval on 25 May 2004).   IV.   Conclusions   The government considers that no individual measure is required, 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 [2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.