CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 décembre 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s5EE9E87A { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; 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 } .sB286AABC { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; 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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)210 [1] Adrian Constantin contre Roumanie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 21175/03, arrêt du 12 avril 2011, définitif le 12 juillet 2011)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)236E ) ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in intergrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnés   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)236E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§1 ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action report [2] Adrian Constantin v. Romania (Application no. 21175/03, judgment of 12 April 2011, final on 12 July 2011 )   I.   Introductory summary of the case   This case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings which ended with the applicant’s conviction in 2002 to a suspended prison sentence for negligence in the performance of his duties, as the applicant’s rights of defence were not fully observed when the Supreme Court of Justice, sitting as last-instance court, changed during the deliberations the legal classification of the acts the applicant was charged with.   The European Court found on these grounds a breach of the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to be allowed adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b)).   II.   As to the individual measures   The Government would like to point out that the amount awarded by the Court in its judgment of 12 April 2011 for just satisfaction was transferred to the applicant’s bank account on 15 September 2011.   The Government would further recall that under Article 408¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant can request the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings within one year as of the date the European Court’s judgment became final.   The Romanian authorities are not aware of any request for reopening having been lodged by the applicant under the aforesaid provisions.   In these circumstances, the Government considers that no other individual measures are necessary in this case.   III.   As to the general measures   A. Publication and dissemination   The Romanian version of the judgment given by the European Court in this case is available on the web site of the Superior Council of Magistracy (www.csm1909.ro). Moreover, the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates.   B. Other general measures   The Government considers no other general measures are required for the execution of this judgment, as the violation in this case did not stem from deficiencies in the legal framework governing the proceedings before the last-instance courts.   Indeed, as the Court itself noted in its judgment (paragraph 21), Article 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the legal reclassification of the facts by the appellate courts, only subject to specific safeguards for the rights of the defence.   Under this provision, the appellate courts are required to ask the prosecution and the defence to submit their observations on the envisaged change in the legal classification and to inform the accused that the trial can be postponed to a later date, should they need time for the preparation of their defence.   The Government would like to emphasize that situation at issue in this case is unlikely to reoccur, as the Romanian judicial authorities are well aware of the European Court’s case-law and of their obligation to construe and apply the domestic law in a manner that is compatible with the requirements thereof. Hence, the general measures taken will prevent similar violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b).   IV.   Conclusions   Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Government invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case of Adrian Constantin v. Romania.   [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] En anglais uniquement