CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 décembre 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10027FC0 { margin-left:5.4pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s976DE78A { height:12.8pt } .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 } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .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 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCEF2C954 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)395 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Străin and Others against Romania   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2025 at the 1545 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 57001/00 STRĂIN AND OTHERS 21/07/2005 30/11/2005   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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, established on account of the deprivation of property nationalised under the communist regime, in the context of the ineffectiveness of the mechanism established to provide restitution or compensation when the property had been sold by the State to third parties after 22 December 1989; as well as to the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, established on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings;   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 to execute the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2025)1341 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the applicants received the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, including the amounts awarded for pecuniary damage, as restitution in kind of the original property was not possible in this case;   Taking note, in respect of the general measures, that the situation giving rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was also examined more extensively by the Court in the pilot judgment Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (No. 30767/05), in response to which the authorities adopted Law No. 165/2013, representing a significant reform of the restitution mechanism under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers; further noting that the safeguards introduced by this Law were validated a priori by the Court in Preda and Others (No. 9584/02), while the outstanding issues identified continued to be supervised in this and Maria Atanasiu and Others cases; also noting that the Court re-examined the effectiveness of the restitution mechanism in   Văleanu and Others v. Romania (No. 59012/17), where it indicated general measures under Article 46;   Noting that the question of the remaining measures required concerning the shortcomings found by the Court in this judgment will continue to be examined within the framework of the pilot judgment Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (No. 30767/05) and Văleanu and Others v. Romania (No. 59012/17), also in the light of the Court’s findings in this case, and that the closure of this case therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures in relation to the reform of the mechanism of reparation for properties nationalised under the communist regime;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case;   CONCLUDES that the question of individual measures has been resolved;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures concerning the reform of the mechanism of reparation for properties nationalised under the communist regime within the framework of the cases Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania (No. 30767/05) and Văleanu and Others v. Romania (No. 59012/17);   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.