CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 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 } .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 } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF4A41F9C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.15pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBE30FE25 { text-align:justify; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s7A75749D { width:24.89pt; 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 } .s47BB67E2 { font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s39EB4D44 { margin-left:15pt; padding-left:21pt; font-weight:bold } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s3A6DE756 { width:22.12pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFD15DF7 { width:19.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)234 S.C Granitul S.A against Romania Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights   Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 22022/03 GRANITUL S.A. 22/03/2011 24/04/2012 15/09/2011 24/07/2012   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 November 2013 at the 1185th (Budget) meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)929 );   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Action report 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.