Resolution CM/ ResDH ( 2013)263 Two cases against Romania

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

4351/02

AMURÄ‚RIÅ¢EI

23/09/2008

23/12/2008

9164/02

ICHIM

10/03/2009

10/06/2009

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 December 2013

at the 1187th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)945 );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Action report

Group of cases Amurăriţei

Amurăriţei v. Romania

(Application No. 4351/02, judgment of 23 September 2008, final on 23 December 2008)

Ichim v. Romania

(Application No. 9164/02, judgment of 10 March 2009, final on 10 June 2009)

I. Introductory summary of the cases

This group of cases concerns the breach of the res judicata principle, in 2000 and 2001, which resulted in the loss of the applicants’ property rights, due to the fact that the domestic courts disregarded the findings of final decisions previously rendered in other cases (violations of Article 6§1 in the Amurăriței case and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both cases).

II. Individual measures

A. The case of Amurăriţei

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction to the amount of 5 000 EUR covering all heads of damage, taking into account the prices in the local property market. This sum was paid to the applicant within the time-limit set by the Court’s judgment.

The government therefore submits that no further individual measures are required.

B. The case of Ichim

The Court awarded no just satisfaction due to the fact that the request made by the applicant did not comply with the requirements.

The Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility to reopen civil proceedings, upon the applicant’s request, in cases in which the European Court has found a violation of the Convention.

Therefore, no further individual measures are necessary.

III. General measures

From the outset, the government notes that the present group of cases relating to the effects of the res judicata principle, does not result from a defect in the domestic law. It is, however, entirely connected to the practice of national courts.

The Court’s judgment in the case of Amurăriţei v. Romania was translated and published on the Superior Council of the Magistracy (“CSM”) site at http://www.csm1909.ro/csm/index.php?cmd=950301 . Summaries of both cases were also published on http://hotararicedo.ro , a vast internet database of all the Court’s judgments accessible free of charge.

The government further notes that the principle of legal certainty and its subsidiary, the binding force of final judicial decisions, as a general rule, has been a matter of general judicial interest, especially to the High Court for Cassation and Justice, as can be seen in several cases.

For instance, in decision no. 2351 of 14 March 2007, which has become a well-known ruling on the matter, the High Court of Cassation and Justice clarified the distinction between the binding power of a final decision and the binding effect of a non-final decision. This particular decision of the High Court is included on the list of study materials for national judges who participate in the exam for promotion to higher courts and it is also published on the High Court’s internet site http://www.scj.ro/SC%20rezumate%202007/SC%20r%202351%202007.htm .

In its decision No. 36 of 14 December 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice ruled, within the special procedure for interpreting the law (“recurs în interesul legii ”), on the subject of the binding force of judicial decisions given in the procedures of revision (“ revizuire ”) and application to set aside (“ contestatie in anulare ”). It was published in the Official Monitor in 2010 and on the internet page of the High Court – http://www.scj.ro/Decizii%20SU/SU%2036-2009.htm .

The High Court also publishes annual reports of cases, all of which contained at least one decision on the matter of binding power of judicial outcome. On the same general rule regarding the binding power of judicial decisions, the national Courts of Appeal have also developed a substantial practice which is also accessible to the public via the internet at http://www.jurisprudenta.org/Search.aspx .

The government is therefore satisfied that the national case law regarding the res judicata principle is in line with the general view of the Court.

Therefore, the government contends that no further general measure is required.

IV. Conclusions

Having regard to the above, the government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken in the present cases and that Romania has complied with the obligations imposed under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The government therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of these cases.