CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 juin 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDD1A0F0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sDDB50A14 { color:#ff0000 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s68E53EED { width:95.22%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4775D7A { height:25.25pt } .sFE37070A { width:22.3%; 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 } .s8E7317A1 { width:17.86%; 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 } .sB846F22F { width:25.96%; 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 } .sA2606931 { width:16.02%; 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 } .s32F48ED0 { width:22.3%; 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 } .sE93558D1 { width:17.86%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s958E81F { width:25.96%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7B0E0460 { width:16.02%; 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 } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB6FDB88 { color:#0000ff } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)70 [1] Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Stere and others and Stîngaciu and Tudor against Romania   (Applications Nos. 25632/02 and 21351/03, judgments of 23/02/2006 and 03/08/2006, final on 23/05/2006 and 3/11/2006)     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;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the annulment of final court decisions concerning tax exemptions (violation 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 to comply with its 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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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;   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 these cases and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.     Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)70   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of Stere and others and Stîngaciu and Tudor against Romania     Introductory case summary   These cases concern the annulment by the Supreme Court of Justice of final court decisions following an application for nullity lodged by the Prosecutor General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Following the applicants’ actions against the Ministry of Defence, in 2001 the domestic courts ordered the Ministry to pay sums withheld in tax. However, the Supreme Court of Justice, following applications lodged by the Prosecutor General, decided in 2002 and 2003 to set aside the final judgments and ordered the reimbursement of the sums lawfully obtained by the applicants. The European Court concluded that although the state’s powers in the taxation field were wide, the exercise of those powers, in the circumstances of these cases, had infringed the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Name and application number Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total Stere and others 25632/02 - 3000 EUR - 3000 EUR Paid on 17/08/2006 Stîngaciu and Tudor 21351/03 - 2000 EUR - 2000 EUR Paid on 22/12/2006   b) Individual measures     1) Stere and others : According to the information available to the European Court when it delivered its judgment, the applicants had not reimbursed the disputed amounts, as the authorities failed to bring any action against them to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages. In 2007, the authorities indicated that the enforcement proceedings against the applicants had been dropped. In these circumstances, no further individual measure appear necessary in this case.     2) Stîngaciu and Tudor : In December 2005, the Ministry of Defence requested the enforced execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. Consequently, a third of the applicants’ retirement pension was deducted in favour of the Ministry of Defence. The European Court held that within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, Romania was to return the sums concerned to the applicants. It also awarded them just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The sums have been paid back to the applicants. In these circumstances, no further individual measure appear necessary in this case.     II.   General measures   These cases present similarities to that of Brumărescu (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90), in which the Romanian authorities indicated the repeal of Article 330 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure by an emergency ordinance adopted by the government and published in the Official Gazette on 28/06/2003. This reform was approved by Parliament on 25/05/2004.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that no individual measure was required in these cases and that the general measures adopted will prevent 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 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies