CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 30 avril 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s145A6E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sDC725B32 { width:4.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s768E2FDC { width:21pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)68 3 affaires (Lungoci, Caracas et Bacso) contre Roumanie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 62710/00, arrêt du 26 janvier 2006, définitif le 26 avril 2006 Requête n o 78037/01, arrêt du 29 juin 2006, définitif le 11 décembre 2006 Requête n o 9293/03, arrêt du 4 novembre 2008, définitif le 4 février 2009)   (adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 30 avril 2013, lors de la 1169e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)   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 que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées   ;   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 integrum   ; 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 à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)155E )   ;   S’étant assuré qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est requise, hormis le paiement de la satisfaction équitable   ;   Ayant noté que les mesures générales relatives à la violation de l’article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention ont été prises et que les questions relatives à la violation de l’article 1 du Protocol n o 1 sont actuellement examinées dans le cadre de la surveillance de l’exécution du groupe d’affaires Străin et autres contre la Roumanie (arrêt du 21 juillet 2005),   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action report Cases Nos. 62710/00 Lungoci v. Romania, 78037/01 Caracas v. Romania and 9293/03 Bacso v. Romania (Anglais seulement)     I.   Introductory case summary   These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the dismissal, between 1998 and 2002, of their claims on the ground that they were identical with claims already determined in previous proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).   According to the findings of the Court, the applicants had been deprived of a clear and effective right of access to a court, due to the fact that they had been given access to a court solely for the purposes of seeing their action declared inadmissible through the operation of the res judicata provisions. Thus, in the Lungoci and Caracas cases, national courts failed to take into account new facts which had occurred after the original decisions, while in the Bacso case, the court disregarded the fact that the claim which formed the object of the second action had not been examined on the merits in the first set of proceedings.   The Bacso case also concerns the failure to restore nationalised property to the applicants as a result of the sale of the property by the state to third parties and the refusal of the courts to examine the applicants’ action to set aside the contract of sale (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   II.   Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The sums were paid to the applicants within the time-limits imposed by the Court (in the Lungoci and Bacso cases) or with default interest (in the Caracas case).   Article 322 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility to reopen civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation. As regards the Bacso case, the Court noted that, in subsequent proceedings, the action to establish title lodged by the applicants against the third parties who bought the property from the State was successful.   Consequently, the government considers that no further measure appears necessary.   III.   General measures   1.   Regarding the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the government notes firstly that these cases do not concern a systemic or general problem in the Romanian judiciary system. These cases are of particular nature as they represent an isolated wrong interpretation of the provisions of Article 1201 of the Romanian Civil Code in force at the time on res judicata.   Aware of the fact that res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests and that it has as primary purpose to assure an efficient judicial system, Romanian courts dismiss a second suit on such a motion only if the trial is identical to the first trial in the following manner: (1) identical parties, (2) identical theories of recovery, and (3) identical demands in both trials.   The judgments in the Lungoci and Caracas cases have been sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringing them to the attention of all domestic courts and public prosecutors’ offices. They were published in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (<http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp>) and of the Superior Council of Magistracy.   After their publication in the Official Journal, summaries and translations of these judgments were published by various specialised internet sites, either public, e.g. Romanian Government’s site: http://www.gov.ro (Lungoci v. Romania), or private, e.g. www.avocatnet.ro , http://retrocedari.com , http://www.infolegal.ro , http://www.europainfo.ro (Lungoci v. Romania) http://www.euroavocatura.ro , http://www.dreptonline.ro (Caracas v. Romania).   Summaries of the three cases above were also published on http://hotararicedo.ro/ , a vast internet data base of all Court’s judgments accessible to all free of charge. As the above-mentioned cases concern an isolated interpretation of this principle, the government considers that the translation and dissemination of the Court’s judgments are sufficient for preventing similar violations.   2.   The general measures needed to prevent violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 similar to the one found by the Court in the Bacso case are examined in the context of the Străin and others group of cases.   IV.   Conclusion   Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the government invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of these cases.