CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 27 mars 2008

.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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD8D1073 { height:28pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s51433B4A { height:100.4pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-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 } .sA5CE4CD6 { height:14pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)16 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Partidul Comuniştilor (Nepecerişti) and Ungureanu against Romania   (Application No. 46626/99, judgment of 3 February 2005, final on 6 July 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the refusal to register a political party (violation of Article 11) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Romania's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant party the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)16   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Partidul Comuniştilor (Nepecerişti) and Ungureanu against Romania     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the refusal in 1996 by the Bucharest Tribunal, upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, to register (under the former law on political parties of 1989) the applicant political group (Party of Communists who had not been members of the Romanian Communist Party) as a political party, given that its aims, as reflected in its constitution and political programme, were considered contrary to the constitutional and legal order of Romania.   The European Court noted that the founding texts of the applicant political group emphasised the principles of democracy, including political pluralism, universal suffrage and freedom to take part in politics, and did not contain any passage which might be considered a call for the use of violence, uprising or any other form of rejection of democratic principles. Moreover, the European Court rejected the government's assertion that Romania cannot allow the emergence of a communist party to form the subject of a democratic debate. Therefore it concluded that a measure as drastic as refusal to register the applicant as a political party, adopted before its activities had even started, was disproportionate to the aim pursued and consequently unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 11).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Dismissed The finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction 100 € to be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable at the date of the payment, plus any tax which may be chargeable 100 € to be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable at the date of the payment, plus any tax which may be chargeable Paid on 21/09/2005 to Mr Ungureanu   b) Individual measures   Following the publication of the judgment of the European Court in the Official Gazette on 24/11/2005, the second applicant requested and obtained the revision of the 1996 court decision rejecting his application for the registration of the political group.   On 9/02/2006 the Bucharest Tribunal admitted the request for revision, ordered the applicant's registration as a political party and set a new a six-month time-limit for the applicant party to allow it to fulfil the conditions imposed by the new legislation for the registration of political parties, notwithstanding the fact that the possibility provided by the new legislation to allow such a time-limit had already expired. This decision became final on 28/06/2006.   As a result the government considers that the applicant party has been given a fair chance, similar to that given to all other parties, to meet the new, more strict registration requirements.     II.   General measures   The law on political parties has changed since the facts of the case. The main problem resided, however, not in the requirements of the law itself but in the interpretation it was given. This analysis is not changed by the intervening legislative changes. In this respect, the Romanian authorities have confirmed the publication of the European Court's judgment in the Official Gazette , as well as its communication to the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Bucharest Court of Appeal and to the Bucharest Regional Court, which is the competent body to decide on the registration of political parties.   In view of the direct effect given to the Convention and to the judgments of the European Court, these measures appeared most appropriate in the circumstances. As evidenced by the revision of the decision at issue in this case, the practice concerning the registration of parties has also changed and appears today in line with the Convention's requirements.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case and that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 27 March 2008 at the 1020th meeting of the Ministers’   Deputies