CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 20 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 } .sA54E3CC5 { font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s776E10E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sF4A41F9C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s6CA3F3E5 { width:25.44pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB220F3F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sDD94A60C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF2392715 { margin-left:15pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:21pt; font-weight:bold } .sA20DF012 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-54pt } .sE620273F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.15pt } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sB10A4219 { width:22.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFD15DF7 { width:19.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)234 S.C Granitul contre Roumanie Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 22022/03 GRANITUL S.A. 22/03/2011 24/04/2012 15/09/2011 24/07/2012   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 20 novembre 2013 lors de la 1185e (Budget) 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 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 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)929 )   ;   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 ( Anglais uniquement ) S.C. Granitul S.A. v. Romania (Application No. 22022/03, judgments of 22 March 2011 (merits) and 24 April 2012 (just satisfaction))                    Introductory summary of the case   The case concerns the infringement of the peaceful enjoyment of the applicant’s possessions on account of a de facto expropriation by the State of a piece of land without any compensation, in 1996 (violation of Article   1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).                    Individual measures   Just satisfaction   The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for pecuniary damage, which was paid to the applicant within the time-limit set by the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention   The applicant received pecuniary damage representing the value of the lost property, as the land entered the public domain and no restitutio in integrum could be possible (see § 12 of the Court’s judgment of 24   April   2012).   Consequently, the authorities consider that no further measure is necessary.                   General measures   The European Court found a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the applicant’s deprivation of property by the Government Decision No. 788/1996 of transferring the property from the applicant to the State without payment.   The Government Decision No. 788/1996 settled the Giurgiu Free Zone for trade purposes and included, among other measures, the transfer of property of 6,65 ha land from the applicant to the public domain in the public interest.   The Law No. 33/1994 provided for an expropriation of properties in the public interest, after a just and previous compensation, based on a court judgment.   Articles 480 and 481 of the former Civil Code guaranteed the right to property within the framework of the law. No one could be deprived of his/her property in the absence of just and previous compensations and outside the public interest.   The domestic courts failed to observe that the transfer of property set by the Government Decision No. 788/1996 represented a de facto expropriation, made contrary to the requirements of the Law No.   33/1994 and Articles 480 and 481 of the former Civil Code, as it was not preceded by compensations and the applicant did not express its consent to the measure.   Having regard to the European Court’s findings in the present case, it would appear that the shortcomings identified in the European Court’s judgment are a matter of application of the relevant provisions of the domestic law and do not call into question the existing legal framework.   The government therefore considers that awareness-raising measures are capable of preventing in the future similar violations of the Convention.   To this end, the judgment of the European Court was translated into Romanian and listed on the website of the Superior Council of Magistracy at www.csm1909.ro .   The government considered the need of further awareness-raising measures to ensure that the provisions of the law in matters related to the procedure of expropriations or transfers of private properties to the public domain will be construed and applied in the light of the requirements of the right to property resulting from this judgment. The government’s Agent before the European Court communicated the judgment to the Superior Council of Magistracy for dissemination to the national courts. A separate dissemination of the judgment was made to the courts that rendered the decisions during the domestic proceedings.   Other measures taken with a view to preventing similar violations are presented in the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)216 adopted in the case of Burghelea (judgment of 27 January 2009).   Consequently, the authorities consider that no additional measures are necessary under the aforementioned issue.                Conclusions   Having regard to the above, the government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken in the present case and that Romania complied with the obligations imposed under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The government therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of this case.