CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 mars 2012

.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 } .sA427913 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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(2012)46 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Albert against Romania   (Application No. 31911/03, judgment of 16 February 2010, final on 16 May 2010)     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 unfairness of proceedings brought by the applicant to challenge a fine imposed on him for a minor offence, due to the courts’ failure to address his submissions and grounds for appeal (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(2012)46   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Albert against Romania     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the unfairness of proceedings brought by the applicant under Government Ordinance No.   2 of 12 July 2001 on the legal regime of the minor offences (“G.O. No. 2/2001”) to challenge a fine imposed on him for a minor offence (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1). In February and May 2003, domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s opposition to the fine at first instance and on appeal, without addressing his argument that the incident report consigning the acts he was charged with did not contain the mandatory information required by law and was therefore null and void. As enforcement were being brought against him, the applicant was compelled to pay the entire amount of the fine, i.e. 100,000,000 Romanian lei. The European Court considered that the gravity of the sanction imposed on the applicant made it “criminal” in nature and that Article 6 was therefore applicable in its criminal aspect. The European Court noted that the first-instance court had failed to address decisive arguments raised by the applicant and the appellate court had failed to answer the applicant’s grounds for appeal based on those shortcomings and to redress them. The European Court concluded that these flaws in the domestic proceedings had deprimed the applicant of a fair trial.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 2 755 EUR 2 000 EUR 2 000 EUR 6 755 EUR Paid on 13/08/2010   b) Individual measures   The amount awarded by the European Court as just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damages covered the amount of the fine the applicant had to pay following the proceedings at issue. In addition, the applicant may request the publication of the judgment in the Official Journal and lodge a request for reopening of the trial under Article 322, paragraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure – applicable to proceedings of the same nature as that at the origin of this case– within one year of the publication.   Consequently, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   As regards the application of the basic guarantees in criminal trials to the proceedings brought under G.O. No.   2/2001 to challenge penalties imposed for minor offences, the government refers to the measures implemented in the framework of the execution of the Anghel case (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)300 ).   The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities to ensure that the guarantees of Article 6 resulting from this judgment are secured by the domestic courts are presented in Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)71 adopted in the Boldea case (judgment of 15/02/2007).   III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   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 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.