CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 novembre 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s755EE6C8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.35pt } .sDA147922 { width:25.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF4A41F9C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)222 Miu contre Roumanie Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 7088/03 MIU 06/11/2012 06/02/2013   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 novembre 2013, lors de la 1183e 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 l’arrêt définitif transmis par la Cour au Comité dans cette affaire 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, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)856 [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 Miu v. Romania (Application No. 7088/03, judgment of 6 November 2012, final on 6 February 2013) (anglais uniquement)   I.   Introductory summary of the case   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, due to the fact that the domestic courts did not examine her demands of restitution of nationalised property on the merits (violation of Article   6§1).   In the case at issue, the Court found that by not having her claims examined on the merits along with the fact that the applicant did not dispose of any concrete possibilities in order to have her restitution claim analysed, this constituted an interference with her right to access to court.   Thus, by the judgment of 22 June 1998, the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected her action to recover the nationalised property on the grounds that her claim should have been addressed to the administrative authorities pursuant to Law No. 112/1995. After the applicant undertook the administrative steps as established by the aforementioned law, the same courts stated in the decision of 20 September 2002 that the litigious immovable was not encompassed in the ambit of the said law.   Thus, having the above-mentioned arguments into regard, the Court concluded that the applicant did not have access to court given the dismissal of her actions as inadmissible on grounds of interplay of the existing legal provisions.   II.   As to the individual measures   By the ECHR judgment of 6 November 2012, the applicant has been awarded, under Article 41 of the Convention, the amount of 3   000 EUR representing non-pecuniary damage for the moral prejudice she had suffered as a result of the violation of her right of access to court. The applicant was also awarded the amount of 2   000 EUR representing costs and expenses.   The deadline for payment of the sums as established by the Court’s judgment was on 6 May 2013.   The payment of the amount of 5   000 EUR has been effectuated on 24 April 2013.   At the same time, it was open to the applicant to request the reopening of the civil proceedings at issue, in conformity with Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, the applicant requested that the government agent publish the judgment at issue in the Official Gazette in order to institute a review procedure against the domestic final decision. Thus, the judgment has been published in the Official Gazette on 16 April 2013. According to the information at the authorities’ disposal, the review procedure has not been yet lodged by the applicant.   In the circumstances presented above, no further individual measures are necessary in the instant case file.   III.   As regards the general measures   The government emphasises that the violation of Article 6 of the Convention, found in the instant case, sprang from wrong applicability of the internal law by the domestic courts.   Thus, the issue posed in this case is a punctual one, namely the contradictory appreciation by the courts of the applicable law in the applicant’s claim.   The aforementioned aspects render the peculiar character of this case, which should not lead to the conclusion that a widespread problem exists at the entire national level. It was only the contradictory appreciation by the courts of the applicable law that led to the breach of Article 6 of the Convention, and not the lack of internal provisions or the lack of legal means in order to have her claims examined before the internal courts.   The government would like to inform the Committee that, in order to avoid further violations of the Convention, the judgment was translated and disseminated. Thus, the translation of the judgment was published in the Official Gazette (1st part) No. 216 of 16 April 2013 and was also transmitted to the Superior Council of the Magistracy and the National Institute for Magistrates for further dissemination among magistrates. The said judgment was also widely published, either in collections of ECHR case law regarding Romania and on public internet sites, such as www.csm1909.ro (site of the Superior Council for the Magistracy) and both in full and a summary thereof on www.hotararicedo.ro/index.php/article_access/view_article/174).   These measures were aimed at raising awareness of the European Court’s case law and at ensuring that the relevant domestic law is construed in accordance with the principles set by the European Court.   Consequently, no further general measures are necessary in the instant case.   IV.   Conclusions   To conclude, the government kindly asks the Committee of Ministers to acknowledge that the measures taken by the Romanian authorities complied with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.   Consequently, the government considers that the examination of this case should be closed. [1] Anglais uniquement.