CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 janvier 2014

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 No. 170 January 2014 Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania - 2699/03 and 43597/07 Judgment 7.1.2014 [Section III] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Indication that respondent State should take general measures to prevent delays and to ensure its compliance with domestic court decisions Facts – The applicants had both obtained final judicial decisions requiring the State to demolish buildings, value and mark trees or pay compensation. However, despite their efforts, the orders were either not complied with or were only complied with after delays. Law – Article 46: In both applications the Court found a violation of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with final domestic decisions on time or at all. The Court had reached like conclusions in some 30 other Romanian cases and more than 130   similar cases were currently pending before it. In a great many of these cases the violations had arisen from the authorities’ conduct (they would make immediate recovery of sums awarded against them impossible or allow claims to became time-barred by alleging that another body was liable) or their refusal to comply with their payment obligations on time or at all. As regards orders for specific performance, more often than not the authorities had refused to comply without giving valid reasons, had put forward arguments contesting the merits of the decisions, referred to various obstacles to compliance or informed the applicants of an alleged objective ground for being unable to comply. The Court noted the measures that had been taken by the domestic authorities, especially after Săcăleanu judgment, with a view to creating a new framework to enable the State’s payment obligations to be met. However, the violations found in the present case reflected a persistent structural dysfunction. It was therefore the Court’s duty to suggest, purely as an indication, the type of measure the Romanian State could take to put an end to the systemic situation that had been identified in the present case. The State had first and foremost to guarantee through appropriate statutory and/or administrative measures that binding and enforceable judgments against it, whether requiring monetary payments or specific performance, would be complied with automatically and promptly. The measures also had to take into account possible situations where strict compliance was objectively impossible and equivalent means of compliance were required. It was unnecessary to adjourn the examination of similar pending cases as the continuing examination of similar cases would help serve as a regular reminder to the respondent State of its obligation arising from the present case. (See Săcăleanu v. Romania , 73970/01, 6   September 2005)   © 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