CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 11 décembre 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .s1A8C3523 { border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s136EDA67 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3561545 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#333333 } .s26C06A56 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#333333 } .sD94837F9 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s1DE73FA8 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2350419D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top } .s75AB092F { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4C3FE5B { padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .sA9C92997 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#333333 } .s7810FBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:10pt } .sE15B3019 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:45.45pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:-28.35pt; font-size:10pt } .s189D71EE { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s454DB9F { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#333333 } .sC13D7A4D { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#428bca } .s7938ECD6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.1pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:10pt } .s8A34A528 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)263 Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme Deux affaires contre Roumanie   Requête n o Affaire Arrêt du Définitif le 4351/02 AMURĂRIŢEI 23/09/2008 23/12/2008 9164/02 ICHIM 10/03/2009 10/06/2009   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 décembre 2013, lors de la 1187e 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 ces affaires 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)945 )   ; 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 ces affaires et DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action report Group of cases Amurăriţei Amurăriţei v. Romania (Application No. 4351/02, judgment of 23 September 2008, final on 23 December 2008) Ichim v. Romania (Application No. 9164/02, judgment of 10 March 2009, final on 10 June 2009) (anglais uniquement)   I.                           Introductory summary of the cases   This group of cases concerns the breach of the res judicata principle, in 2000 and 2001, which resulted in the loss of the applicants’ property rights, due to the fact that the domestic courts disregarded the findings of final decisions previously rendered in other cases (violations of Article 6§1 in the Amurăriței case and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both cases).         II.                       Individual measures   A.                 The case of Amurăriţei The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction to the amount of 5 000 EUR covering all heads of damage, taking into account the prices in the local property market.   This sum was paid to the applicant within the time-limit set by the Court’s judgment. The government therefore submits that no further individual measures are required.   B.                 The case of Ichim The Court awarded no just satisfaction due to the fact that the request made by the applicant did not comply with the requirements. The Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility to reopen civil proceedings, upon the applicant’s request, in cases in which the European Court has found a violation of the Convention. Therefore, no further individual measures are necessary.   III.                     General measures From the outset, the government notes that the present group of cases relating to the effects of the res judicata principle, does not result from a defect in the domestic law. It is, however, entirely connected to the practice of national courts. The Court’s judgment in the case of Amurăriţei v. Romania was translated and published on the Superior Council of the Magistracy (“CSM”) site at http://www.csm1909.ro/csm/index.php?cmd=950301 . Summaries of both cases were also published on http://hotararicedo.ro , a vast internet database of all the Court’s judgments accessible free of charge. The government further notes that the principle of legal certainty and its subsidiary, the binding force of final judicial decisions, as a general rule, has been a matter of general judicial interest, especially to the High Court for Cassation and Justice, as can be seen in several cases. For instance, in decision No. 2351 of 14 March 2007, which has become a well-known ruling on the matter, the High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified the distinction between the binding power of a final decision and the binding effect of a non-final decision. This particular decision of the High Court is included on the list of study materials for national judges who participate in the exam for promotion to higher courts and it is also published on the High Court’s internet site http://www.scj.ro/SC%20rezumate%202007/SC%20r%202351%202007.htm .   In its decision No. 36 of 14 December 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled, within the special procedure for interpreting the law (“recurs în interesul legii”), on the subject of the binding force of judicial decisions given in the procedures of revision (“revizuire”) and application to set aside (“contestatie in anulare”). It was published in the Official Monitor in 2010 and on the internet page of the High Court – http://www.scj.ro/Decizii%20SU/SU%2036-2009.htm .   The High Court also publishes annual reports of cases, all of which contained at least one decision on the matter of binding power of judicial outcome. On the same general rule regarding the binding power of judicial decisions, the national Courts of Appeal have also developed a substantial practice which is also accessible to the public via the internet at http://www.jurisprudenta.org/Search.aspx . The government is therefore satisfied that the national case law regarding the res judicata principle is in line with the general view of the Court. Therefore, the government contends that no further general measure is required.   IV.                     Conclusions Having regard to the above, the government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken in the present cases and that Romania has 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 these cases.