CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 juin 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE07C74DA { border:1.5pt double #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s42E65D7A { height:27.75pt } .s7C35CBBD { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sFEBEADFA { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .s9A734C56 { border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .sB286AABC { font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFBF10AB1 { border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:top } .s4AEBB0A7 { height:18.75pt } .s185471 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBC32031A { border-style:double; border-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s91A1E95C { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; border-bottom-style:double; border-bottom-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2D4DB0A7 { height:12.75pt } .s35109BB6 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6FBC9AC3 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-right-style:double; border-right-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s2E6C0BD7 { border-top-style:double; border-top-width:1.5pt; border-left-style:double; border-left-width:1.5pt; padding-right:4.65pt; padding-left:4.65pt; vertical-align:middle } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Brumărescu (Grand Chamber judgment of 28 October 1999) and 30 other cases against Romania, final between 9 July 2002 and 3 May 2005   (see details of the cases in Appendix)     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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final (see details in Appendix);   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern in particular violations of the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as well as of their right to have their claims examined by a court, in fair proceedings, on account of the Supreme Court's annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' title to property previously nationalised (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Romania's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state had paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments, including default interest, where applicable (see details in Appendix);   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 897th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (September 2004),   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of Brumărescu (Grand Chamber judgment of 28 October 1999) and 30 other cases against Romania, final between 9 July 2002 and 3 May 2005     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the annulment by the Supreme Court of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to property previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions.   The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants' right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants' right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts' jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1 in all the cases except State and others, Grigore, Paulescu, Tandreu and Sofletea).   Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court's decisions had violated the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation final court decisions recognising the applicants' property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).   In the Nagy case, the violation of the property right is also determined by the uncertainty flowing from the existence of two contradictory property titles to the apartment at issue. The state obtained a property title based on the 1995 Supreme Court decision (annulling the previous final decision returning the apartment to the applicant) and obtained the right to note this title in the land register in February 1999. On the other hand, the applicant had bought the apartment from the state in 1975 (and is occupying it) and noted his right in the land register in March 1999                           I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Application No. o Case Judgment of Final on Total Just satisfaction [2] Payment Deadline Paid on 28342/95 BRUMĂRESCU 28/10/1999, 23/01/2001 (article 41) 28/10/1999, 23/01/2001 (article 41) 59 500 USD (-3   900 FRF) / restitution 23/04/2001 [3] 23/07/2001 [4] 27/04/2001 [5] 17/07/2001 [6] 20/07/2001 [7] 29411/95 ANGHELESCU 09/04/2002 09/07/2002 75 322 € 09/10/2002 10/06/2002 32260/96 SURPĂCEANU 21/05/2002 21/08/2002 8 000 € 21/11/2002 09/08/2002 Application No. o Case Judgment of Final on Total Just satisfaction [8] Payment Deadline Paid on 29407/95 VASILIU 21/05/2002 04/09/2002 205 000 € 04/12/2002 04/12/2002 29968/96 HODOŞ and others 21/05/2002 04/09/2002 19   500 € / restitution 04/12/2002   04/12/2002 [9] 21/09/2004 [10] 29053/95 CIOBANU 16/07/2002 16/10/2002 186 350 € 16/01/2003 04/08/2004 [11] 29769/96 CURUŢIU 22/10/2002 22/01/2003 44   000 € 22/04/2003 21/04/2003 30698/96 MATEESCU and others 22/10/2002 22/01/2003 2967,53 € / restitution 22/04/2003   01/07/2003 [12] 28/05/2004 [13] 31680/96 STATE and others 11/02/2003 11/05/2003 46   000 € 11/08/2003 01/10/2003 [14] 31804/96 CHIRIACESCU 04/03/2003 04/06/2003 74   400 € 04/09/2003 11/09/2003 [15] 32268/96 NAGY 26/11/2002 26/02/2003 5   400 € 26/05/2003 08/05/2003 32936/96 DRĂGNESCU 26/11/2002 26/02/2003 4   400 € 26/05/2003 08/05/2003 32977/96 GĂVRUS 26/11/2002 26/02/2003 44   000 € 26/05/2003 21/04/2003 33353/96 BOC 17/12/2002 17/03/2003 16   500 € 17/06/2003 16/06/2003 33355/96 POPESCU NASTA 07/01/2003 07/04/2003 16 523€/ restitution 07/07/2003 30/05/2003 [16] 06/08/2003 [17] 33631/96 SAVULESCU 17/12/2002 17/03/2003 230   062 € 17/06/2003 16/06/2003 36039/97 OPRESCU 14/01/2003 14/04/2003 3   000 € 14/07/2003 01/07/2003 31736/96 GRIGORE 11/02/2003 11/05/2003 42   000 € 11/08/2003 06/08/2003 32269/96 TĂRBĂŞANU 11/02/2003 11/05/2003 210   500 € 11/08/2003 06/08/2003 31172/96 POPA and others 29/04/2003 29/07/2003 45   672 € 29/10/2003 23/10/2003 32915/96 GHITESCU 29/04/2003 29/07/2003 5   187 € 29/10/2003 21/10/2003 38445/97 ERDEI ET WOLF 15/07/2003 15/10/2003 23   000 € 15/01/2004 15/12/2003 36017/97 DICKMANN 22/07/2003 22/10/2003 138   000 € 22/01/2004 27/02/2004 [18] 35882/97 POTOP 25/11/2003 25/02/2004 28   000 € 25/05/2004 29/04/2004 38360/97 POPESCU 25/11/2003 25/02/2004 5   000 € 25/05/2004 29/04/2004 39184/98 TANDREU 25/11/2003 25/02/2004 31   608 € / restitution 25/05/2004 29/04/2004 48179/99 SOFLETEA 25/11/2003 25/02/2004 33   440 € 25/05/2004 06/05/2004 34644/97 PAULESCU 10/06/2003, 20/04/2004 20/04/2004 120   000 € [19] 20/07/2004 14/07/2004 Application No. o Case Judgment of Final on Total Just satisfaction [20] Payment Deadline Paid on 29973/96 GOLEA 17/12/2002, 27/07/2004 27/07/2004 650 € / restitution 21/08/2003 06/08/2003 16/02/2004 [21] 42513/98 CHIVORCHIAN 02/11/2004 02/02/2005 6   000 € 02/05/2005 15/04/2005 39410/98 IACOB 03/02/2005 03/05/2005   253   000 € 03/08/2005 29/07/2005     b) Individual measures   In accordance with the decisions of the European Court, the state has, in all these cases, under Article 41 of the Convention, either returned the properties at issue to the applicants or paid an amount of money corresponding to the current value of the properties at issue.   Concerning the Nagy case, the Romanian authorities indicated that the land register contained two successive notations, which were not conflicting, so that the applicant is recognised in domestic law as the sole owner of the property at issue.     II.   General measures   Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2000, was repealed by Article 1 §17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 adopted by the government and published in the Official Gazette on 28/06/2003. This reform was approved by Parliament on 25/05/2004. Accordingly, it is no longer possible to annul final judicial decisions establishing the right to have nationalised property restored.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully erased the consequences for the applicants of the violations found in these cases and will prevent new, similar violations in future and that Romania has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph   1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. [2] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed. [3] Deadline of payment of the amounts due for moral damage and legal costs. [4] Deadline for restitution of property or payment of amounts due for material damage. [5] Date of payment of the amounts due for moral damage and legal costs. [6] Date of restitution of some of the contested property. [7] Date of payment of material damage corresponding to the property which was not restituted. [8] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed. [9] Date of payment of the amounts due for moral damage. [10] Date of restitution of the property. [11] The payment includes default interests. [12] The payment includes default interests. [13] Date of restitution of the property. [14] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests. [15] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests. [16] Date of restitution of the property. [17] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests. [18] The payment includes default interests. [19] The respondent state and the applicant came to a friendly settlement as regards the amount of the compensation. [20] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed. [21] Date of restitution of the property.