Resolution CM/ ResDH (2008) 78 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Buzescu against Romania

(Application No. 61302/00, judgment of 24 May 2005, final on 24 August 2005)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the annulment of the re-admission of a lawyer to a Bar association which led to a loss of a part of his clientele and shortcomings of administrative and judicial proceedings concerning this annulment (Article 6§1; Article 1 of P rotocol 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 Romania ’ s 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 Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, 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

- of 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 (2008)78

Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Buzescu against Romania

Introductory case summary

The case relates to the unfairness of certain proceedings initiated by the applicant against the annulment by the Romania n Union of Lawyers (UAR), in 1996, of the decision by which the Constanţa Bar Association had reinstated him in 1991 (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that the entire proceedings had been unfair. Thus, the power of the UAR to annul the Bars ’ decisions was not expressly provided in national law at the material time. Furthermore, the domestic courts had not answered the applicant ’ s main argument, namely that he had acted in good faith when he had lodged an application for re-admission to the Constanţa Bar in 1991. Finally, there were considerable doubts as to the manner in which the Court of Appeal reversed the order concerning the admission of evidence.

The European Court also found a disproportionate interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his possessions (due in particular to the loss of part of his clientele), since the UAR annulled his registration as a lawyer after a delay of five years and has constantly refused to resolve his situation since then, and also since the relevant legal provisions in force in 1996 failed to provide with sufficient certainty and precision the power of the UAR to annul decisions of Bar associations (violation of Article 1 of P rotocol No. 1).

I. P ayment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

P ecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

7 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

12 000 EUR

24 000 EUR

P aid on 27/10/2005

b) Individual measures

On 14/02/2004, the Council of the UAR decided to set aside its 1996 decision. The applicant has been permanently registered as a lawyer and member of the Bucharest Bar since 01/12/2004 ( http://www.baroul-bucuresti.ro/q_av_ro.asp ). In addition, the European Court awarded him just satisfaction on an equitable basis in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred.

II. General measures

The competence of the Council of the UAR to examine the lawfulness of Bar decisions and to annul them on grounds of illegality has been explicitly regulated by the amendment of the Legal P rofession Act (Law No. 51/1995) on 06/03/2001.

The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the Official Journal . It was also included in a study, Case-law against Romania 2005-2006 , published in co-operation with the Information Office of the Council of Europe. In May 2005, the Constanţa Bar Association, Bucharest Bar Association and Romania n Union of Lawyers were informed of the content of the judgment and asked to disseminate it to all Bar Associations. It seems that the situation criticised by the European Court in this case is an isolated one.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies