Resolution CM/ ResDH (2013)166

Jones against Romania

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 36478/02, judgment of 3 February 2009, final on 3 May 2009)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 September 2013 at the 1177th 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 “t he Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the disproportionate interference with the applicant ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possession due to actions of the administrative authorities which unduly delayed the applicant ’ s taking possession of an immovable property nationalised under the communist regime (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 mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgment;

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 a p plicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Ap pendix);

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 S tate, 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 exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2013)166

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Jones against Romania

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the violation of the applicant ’ s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions mainly due to actions of the administrative authorities which delayed his taking possession of an immovable property restored to him by a decision of the Giurgiu Town Hall under the legislation concerning the immovable property nationalised during the communist regime (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In July 2001, the Town Hall upheld the restitution claim brought by the applicant and transferred to him possession of the disputed property. Shortly before, the government had issued an order under which the ownership title to the property was transferred from the Town Hall to the council of Giurgiu County, but the transfer became effective only in August 2001. The Prefect of the Giurgiu County intervened on behalf of the government by bringing a series of proceedings which resulted in the annulment of the restitution order favourable to the applicant. The applicant was therefore obliged to bring new proceedings which resulted in the restitution of the property in 2006.

The European Court found that it was for the local authorities to clarify the status of the disputed property and to ensure compliance with the law in the restitution proceedings. Yet the initial order for restitution had been annulled by the courts on grounds entirely attributable to the local authorities and moreover of questionable relevance. In these circumstances, until the property was restored following new proceedings, the applicant had borne a special and excessive burden since he had been deprived of the enjoyment of his possessions for more than five years without any compensation or measure of redress.

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

€5 000

€3 000

€8 000

Paid on 03/08/2009

b) Individual measures

The property at issue was restored to the applicant in 2006. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses and dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant ’ s claim in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of profit.

In these circumstances, no further individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The Romanian authorities consider that the violation found stems from an incidental set of circumstances, namely the errors made by the administrative authorities in the first restitution proceedings and the domestic courts ’ assessment of the effects of the government ’ s order on the legal status of the disputed property. Having regard to these circumstances, the case would appear to be of an isolated nature.

In any event, the Romanian authorities organised the dissemination of the European Court ’ s judgment. Thus, a summary of the judgment in Romanian was send to the Ministry of Administration and Home Affairs for dissemination to all Prefect Offices and to other decentralised administrative authorities involved in the restitution process. The summary of the judgment was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy for dissemination to all domestic courts, so that it could be discussed within the framework of the professional training of the judges. Lastly, the judgment was presented in the Collection of the European Court ’ s case l aw between 1994 - 2009, together with an analysis of its effects and the indication of the authorities responsible of the violation found.

III. Conclusions of the respondent S tate

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, 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.