CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s3AF0A5A1 { width:33.22pt; 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 } .s682A13C7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s1161F5E3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s28255928 { width:18.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s65811E34 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAF6BE0DA { text-align:left; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC4C572A1 { width:43.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s779EB7AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s9CF10FBA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)113 The Argeş College of Legal Advisers contre Roumanie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 2162/05, arrêt du 8 mars 2011, définitif le 8 juin 2011)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2013, lors de la 1172e 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 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   ;   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 l’arrêt et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document DH-DD(2013)288 ) [1]   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 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 The Arges College of Legal Advisors v. Romania (Application No. 2162/05, judgment of 8 March 2011, final on 8 June 2011)                                   Introductory summary of the case   This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to freedom of association following the dismissal of its request for registration as a professional association of legal advisers by a decision of 4 October 2004 given by the Argeş County Court (violation of Article 11).   The Argeş County Court dismissed the applicant’s request on grounds that some of the provisions of its statutes contravened the applicable legislation.   The European Court found that the applicant had in fact amended the provisions at issue in the course of the impugned proceedings and that these amendments had been validated by a court decision.   The European Court considered that the dismissal of the registration request represented an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of association. It further found that in dismissing the request on ground that some provisions of the applicant’s statutes contravened the law, the Argeş County Court had failed to take into account the amendments brought by the applicant to the impugned provisions. The European Court considered that the refusal to take into consideration these amendments, which had been validated within the time-limit prescribed by the law, contradicted the spirit of the law, which enabled the courts to allow applicants deadlines to put in conformity their applications and the supporting documents. Moreover, the dismissal led to severe effects, since by the time the appellate court gave its ruling, the deadline provided by Law No. 514/2003 for the setting up of associations of legal advisers had already expired, and thus the applicant could not reapply for registration.   The European Court concluded that the reasons brought forward by the Argeş County Court to refuse the registration of the applicant association were not relevant and sufficient and that such a severe measure, taken even before the association started operating, appeared disproportionate to the aim pursued. Therefore, the interference could not be deemed necessary in a democratic society.     II.   As to the individual measures :   The applicant did not claim just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention. Based on the European Court’s judgment, under Article 322, §9 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant applied for a review of the decision of 4 October 2004 of the Argeş County Court whereby its registration was refused.   On 21 June 2012, the Argeş County Court upheld the applicant’s request, quashed the impugned decision and ordered the registration of the applicant as a professional association of the legal advisers. This decision is final.   In the light of these developments, the Government considers that the applicant no longer suffers from any consequences of the violation found by the European Court and that no further individual measure is necessary in this case.     III.   As regards the general measures   In this case, the European Court challenged the formalistic approach taken by the Argeş County Court when dismissing the applicant’s registration request on grounds that some provisions of the statutes contravened the law, namely its omission to take into account the amendments brought in the meantime to the applicant’s statutes to put them in conformity with the relevant law.   The Government would like to underline that the domestic rules of procedure do not prevent the courts from taking into consideration the developments occurred pending trial when ruling on a case.   In the light of the above, the Government considers that the publication and the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment are sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.   To that end, the translation into Romanian of the European Court’s judgment in the present case was published in the Official Journal No. 569 of 10 October 2011.   Moreover, the judgment was disseminated to the Arges County Court, the decision of which was found to have breached Article 11 of the Convention.   As a result of these measures, the Romanian judicial authorities are now aware of the Convention requirements resulting from the present judgment.   The Government concludes that no other general measures are necessary in this case.     IV.   Conclusion   The Government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken in the present cases and that Romania complied with the obligations imposed under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Government therefore invite the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of these cases.   [1] En anglais uniquement.