CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sCC45E8B1 { height:47.8pt } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5973E9B1 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:27.61pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sB1F34DFD { height:40pt } THIRD SECTION Application no. 54577/07 Dumitru DAVID against Romania and 7 other applications (see list appended)   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES     1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and/or with Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, in so far as the courts of appeal reached different final solutions in similar actions regarding the relevant mandatory contribution period for the recalculation of pensions of persons having retired under the provisions of Law 3/1977?   2.     Was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court’s case-law regarding the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention, complied with by the domestic courts?   The Government are requested to comment on the example of divergent domestic case-law, as submitted by the applicants. Are these examples similar to the applicants’ circumstances and has there been a different interpretation of the applicable law?         APPENDIX     Case   number and date of lodging   Applicant(s) and/or representative Final decisions recalculating the applicants’ pension, applying a 30-year mandatory period Diverging case-law cited by the applicants: final decisions applying a 20-year mandatory contribution period   54577/07 Lodged on 26/11/2007 Dumitru DAVID   Cluj Court of Appeal decision no   1364/R/2007 of 12   June 2007, file no   4409/100/2006 Timişoara Court of Appeal decisions no 4040/R of 7   December 2005 and no 2086 of 31 October 2006   43636/06 lodged on 19/10/2006 Ioan MIHALACHE Alba Iulia Court of Appeal decision no   771/2006 of 8 June 2006, file no   97/57/2006 Timişoara Court of Appeal decision no 4040/Rof 7   December 2005   48039/09 lodged on 8/09/2009 Constantin DUBINTOV Piteşti Court of Appeal, decision no   375/R-CA of 2 March 2009 (available on 1   April 2009), file no 1756/109/2008 Piteşti Court of Appeal decisions no   110/R ‑ CA of 3 October 2007 and no   562/R-CA of 23 March 2009   52596/09 lodged on 23/09/2009 Ion NICOLESCU Ploieşti Court of Appeal, decision no 755 of 14   April 2009, file no 5960/120/2008 Bucharest Court of Appeal, decisions no   3988R of 17 October 2008, no   4805R of 28 November 2008, and no 4859/R of 3   December 2008; Ploieşti Court of Appeal, decision no 492 of 16 March 2009   63469/10 lodged on 18/10/2010 Corneliu IOAN and Others (Arghir Porca, Ilie Marica, Marin Sfantu) Represented by Vasile   Barbu Braşov Court of Appeal , decision no   768/R of 6 July 2010 (file no   9162/62/2009), and nos 716/R, 707/R and 708/R of 29   June 2010 (files nos   80/62/2010, 114/62/2010 and 7875/62/2009 respectively) Braşov Court of Appeal, decisions nos 1047/R and 1036/R of 5   October   2010   10666/11 lodged on 4/02/2011 Paul DUMITRESCU Craiova Court of Appeal, decision no   5776 of 19   November 2010, file no   788/104/2010 Bucharest Court Of Appeal, decisions no 5423/R of 7 October 2009, no   5868/R of 22   October 2009 and no 6967R of 27   November 2009; Constanţa Court of Appeal, decision no   312/AS of 21 April 2009   13178/11 lodged on 14/02/2011 Constantin MECHE   Craiova Court of Appeal, decision no 5038 of 15   October 2010, file no 793/104/2010 Bucharest Court Of Appeal, decisions no 5423/R of 7 October 2009, no   5868/R of 22   October 2009 and no 6967R of 27   November 2009   20219/11 lodged on 12/03/2011 Augustin CALUGAR Cluj Court of Appeal, decision no   2417/R of 6 October 2010, file no   4525/117/2009 Bucharest Court of Appeal, decisions no 1528/P of 11   March 2009, no   1895 of 25   March 2009, and no 4596R of 19 June 2009; Galaţi Court of Appeal, decision no   470/R of 5 May 2009; Constanţa Court of Appeal, decision no   77/AS of 2 March 2010