CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 11 octobre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 145 October 2011 Savu v. Romania (dec.) - 29218/05 Decision 11.10.2011 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Complaint concerning failure to execute a court order that had become devoid of purpose: inadmissible Facts – In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained of a failure by the authorities to execute a court order of 3   February 2003 requiring a local mayor to issue a certificate concerning the ownership of land between 1959 and 1963 which they had needed as evidence in separate proceedings for restitution of the land. The first applicant’s rights to the land were in fact upheld in a decision of 27   August 2003 in the restitution proceedings, partly on the basis of a certificate issued by the municipality, although it was unclear whether this was the same certificate as that stipulated in the order of 3   February. In the proceedings before it, the European Court decided of its own motion to examine the issue of admissibility in the light of the criteria set out in Article 35 §   3   (b) of the Convention. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): Although the main obligation requiring enforcement – the issue of a certificate concerning land-ownership rights – could not be quantified financially, the Court was ready to accept that it concerned a civil right within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 that was of importance to the applicants. There was no need to determine whether the certificate relied on in the final decision of 27   August 2003 was the same as that which had been contemplated in the proceedings against the mayor as, once the applicants’ ownership rights over the land had been recognised in a final judicial decision, the purpose for which the applicants had sought to obtain the certificate had been attained. They could not, therefore, be deemed to have suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged non-execution of the final decision of 3   February 2003. Nor had the failure to enforce the obligation to pay penalties in default of production of the certificate caused a significant disadvantage as that obligation was subsidiary and only served as a mechanism for securing compliance with the main obligation. Lastly, the delay of almost seven months before the decision of 27   August 2003 was not excessive and so had not caused a significant disadvantage either. As to the two remaining criteria under Article 35 §   3   (b), respect for human rights did not require an examination of the application on the merits, as the problem of non-enforcement in Romania had already been addressed on numerous occasions by the Court, and the applicants’ complaints against the mayor had been duly considered – at two levels of jurisdiction – by a domestic tribunal. Conclusion : inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes