CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 423 27.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not Final [1]   De Hohenzollern (de Roumanie) v. Romania (application no. 18811/02)   JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS   allowing applicant to be recognised as the son of king Carol II OF ROMANIA FAILED TO COMPLY WITH REASONABLE TIME REQUIREMENT   Unanimously   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the 1st applicant No violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the 2nd applicant     Principal facts   The applicants are Carol Mircea Grigore de Hohenzollern (de Roumanie) – “the first applicant” – and his son Paul Philip de Hohenzollern – “the second applicant”. They are, respectively, United Kingdom and Romanian nationals, born in 1920 and 1948, who lived (or still live) in London. Following the first applicant’s death in 2006, his son continued the proceedings before the Court, on his own and on his father’s behalf.   In a judgment of 6 February 1955 the Lisbon District Court recognised the first applicant, who had been born outside marriage, as the son of King Carol II of Romania, following a case in which Princess Elena, the former King Mihai of Romania – the first applicant’s half-brother – and Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parme were defendants.   The applicants sought authority to enforce the judgment in Romania, their intention being to have the judgment considered as final in that country. They sought to have their membership of the Romanian royal family recognised and submitted that they were entitled to the estate left by Carol II, in the context of restitution by the State to the former King Mihai of part of the former royal properties.   On 13 October 1995 the judgment of the Lisbon District Court was recognised as final in Romania. The former King Mihai of Romania lodged two unsuccessful appeals against that decision.   In February 2002 the Procurator-General of Romania successfully requested the Supreme Court of Justice to quash the previous decisions on the ground that Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parme had been a party to the proceedings before the Lisbon District Court but not to the proceedings seeking authority to enforce the judgment in Romania.   On 1 July 2002 authority to enforce the judgment was upheld by a court decision that was subsequently set aside on appeal by the former King Mihai and Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parme. Following the death of the first applicant, the proceedings were stayed from June 2006 until June 2007. The defendant party challenged an application by Paul Philip de Hohenzollern to continue the proceedings. The case is still pending today.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicants complained of the length of the proceedings seeking authority to enforce the judgment in Romania. They also alleged that the domestic courts had lacked impartiality and that the principle of equality of arms had been breached in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 April   2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The second applicant could not rely on Article 6   §   1 until 6   August 2007, when – in his capacity as his father’s heir – he became a party to the proceedings seeking authority to enforce the judgment. The Court held that the period that had elapsed since that date did not fall foul of Article 6 § 1 and that there had not therefore been a violation of that Article regarding Paul Philip de Hohenzollern.   With regard to the first applicant, the date to be taken into account was 20 June 1994, when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in respect of Romania. However, the Court took account of the fact that on that date the case had already been pending for nearly three years before the domestic courts. The Court considered that proceedings to enforce a judgment abroad that had lasted more than 15 years and were still not finished were particularly long. It pointed to the lack of diligence on the part of the authorities, and in particular the three years during which the case had remained pending before the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the proceedings had not satisfied the “reasonable time” requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 and the Court held that there had been a violation of that provision in respect of the first applicant.   Concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of the domestic courts, the Court did not see any evidence of partiality in the case and pointed out that the courts had examined the documents produced by the parties, applied the law without any appearance of arbitrariness and given decisions containing factual and legal reasons. This complaint was therefore dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.   With regard to the complaint of lack of fairness in the proceedings on grounds of the intervention by the Procurator-General, the latter had a statutory right to participate in hearings in a civil case of public interest in order to protect public order and citizens’ rights and freedoms. The case in question had a clear public interest: restitution of former royal properties to members of the royal family, in accordance with the restitution laws enacted in Romania after the Revolution. The Court therefore dismissed this complaint as manifestly ill-founded.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held that Romania had to pay the second applicant, in his capacity as the first applicant’s heir, 9,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website .   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. All final judgments   are transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of their execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .