Lexploria

Resolution CM/ ResDH (2007) 90 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Brumărescu (Grand Chamber judgment of 28 October 1999) and 30 other cases against Romania ,

final between 9 July 2002 and 3 May 2005

(see details of the cases in Appendix)

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 judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final (see details in Appendix);

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern in particular violations of the applicants ' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as well as of their right to have their claims examined by a court, in fair proceedings, on account of the Supreme Court ' s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants ' title to property previously nationalised (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and of 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 in order to comply with Romania ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgments;

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 the respondent state had paid the a p plicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments, including default interest, where applicable (see details in Appendix);

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 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

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 897th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies (September 2004),

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

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2007)90

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the case of

Brumărescu (Grand Chamber judgment of 28 October 1999) and 30 other cases

against Romania , final between 9 July 2002 and 3 May 2005

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the annulment by the Supreme Court of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants ' titles to property previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions.

The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants ' right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants ' right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts ' jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1 in all the cases except State and others, Grigore , Paulescu , Tandreu and Sofletea ).

Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court ' s decisions had violated the applicants ' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation final court decisions recognising the applicants ' property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In the Nagy case, the violation of the property right is also determined by the uncertainty flowing from the existence of two contradictory property titles to the apartment at issue. The state obtained a property title based on the 1995 Supreme Court decision (annulling the previous final decision returning the apartment to the applicant) and obtained the right to note this title in the land register in February 1999. On the other hand, the applicant had bought the apartment from the state in 1975 (and is occupying it) and noted his right in the land register in March 1999

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Application No. o

Case

Judgment of

Final on

Total Just satisfaction [2]

Payment Deadline

Paid on

28342/95

BRUMÄ‚RESCU

28/10/1999, 23/01/2001 (article 41)

59 500 USD

(-3 900 FRF) / restitution

23/04/2001 [3]

23/07/2001 [4]

27/04/2001 [5]

17/07/2001 [6]

20/07/2001 [7]

29411/95

ANGHELESCU

09/04/2002

09/07/2002

75 322 €

09/10/2002

10/06/2002

32260/96

SUR P Ä‚CEANU

21/05/2002

21/08/2002

8 000 €

21/11/2002

09/08/2002

Application No. o

Case

Judgment of

Final on

Total Just satisfaction [8]

Payment Deadline

Paid on

29407/95

VASILIU

21/05/2002

04/09/2002

205 000 €

04/12/2002

29968/96

HODOÅž and others

21/05/2002

04/09/2002

19 500 € / restitution

04/12/2002

04/12/2002 [9]

21/09/2004 [10]

29053/95

CIOBANU

16/07/2002

16/10/2002

186 350 €

16/01/2003

04/08/2004 [11]

29769/96

CURUÅ¢IU

22/10/2002

22/01/2003

44 000 €

22/04/2003

21/04/2003

30698/96

MATEESCU and others

22/10/2002

22/01/2003

2967,53 € / restitution

22/04/2003

01/07/2003 [12]

28/05/2004 [13]

31680/96

STATE and others

11/02/2003

11/05/2003

46 000 €

11/08/2003

01/10/2003 [14]

31804/96

CHIRIACESCU

04/03/2003

04/06/2003

74 400 €

04/09/2003

11/09/2003 [15]

32268/96

NAGY

26/11/2002

26/02/2003

5 400 €

26/05/2003

08/05/2003

32936/96

DRÄ‚GNESCU

26/11/2002

26/02/2003

4 400 €

26/05/2003

08/05/2003

32977/96

GÄ‚VRUS

26/11/2002

26/02/2003

44 000 €

26/05/2003

21/04/2003

33353/96

BOC

17/12/2002

17/03/2003

16 500 €

17/06/2003

16/06/2003

33355/96

POPESCU NASTA

07/01/2003

07/04/2003

16 523€/ restitution

07/07/2003

30/05/2003 [16]

06/08/2003 [17]

33631/96

SAVULESCU

17/12/2002

17/03/2003

230 062 €

17/06/2003

16/06/2003

36039/97

OPRESCU

14/01/2003

14/04/2003

3 000 €

14/07/2003

01/07/2003

31736/96

GRIGORE

11/02/2003

11/05/2003

42 000 €

11/08/2003

06/08/2003

32269/96

TÄ‚RBÄ‚ÅžANU

11/02/2003

11/05/2003

210 500 €

11/08/2003

06/08/2003

31172/96

POPA and others

29/04/2003

29/07/2003

45 672 €

29/10/2003

23/10/2003

32915/96

GHITESCU

29/04/2003

29/07/2003

5 187 €

29/10/2003

21/10/2003

38445/97

ERDEI ET WOLF

15/07/2003

15/10/2003

23 000 €

15/01/2004

15/12/2003

36017/97

DICKMANN

22/07/2003

22/10/2003

138 000 €

22/01/2004

27/02/2004 [18]

35882/97

POTOP

25/11/2003

25/02/2004

28 000 €

25/05/2004

29/04/2004

38360/97

POPESCU

25/11/2003

25/02/2004

5 000 €

25/05/2004

29/04/2004

39184/98

TANDREU

25/11/2003

25/02/2004

31 608 € /

restitution

25/05/2004

29/04/2004

48179/99

SOFLETEA

25/11/2003

25/02/2004

33 440 €

25/05/2004

06/05/2004

34644/97

PAULESCU

10/06/2003, 20/04/2004

20/04/2004

120 000 € [19]

20/07/2004

14/07/2004

Application No. o

Case

Judgment of

Final on

Total Just satisfaction [20]

Payment Deadline

Paid on

29973/96

GOLEA

17/12/2002, 27/07/2004

27/07/2004

650 € /

restitution

21/08/2003

06/08/2003

16/02/2004 [21]

42513/98

CHIVORCHIAN

02/11/2004

02/02/2005

6 000 €

02/05/2005

15/04/2005

39410/98

IACOB

03/02/2005

03/05/2005

253 000 €

03/08/2005

29/07/2005

b) Individual measures

In accordance with the decisions of the European Court , the state has, in all these cases, under Article 41 of the Convention, either returned the properties at issue to the applicants or paid an amount of money corresponding to the current value of the properties at issue.

Concerning the Nagy case, the Romanian authorities indicated that the land register contained two successive notations, which were not conflicting, so that the applicant is recognised in domestic law as the sole owner of the property at issue.

II. General measures

Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2000, was repealed by Article 1 §17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 adopted by the government and published in the Official Gazette on 28/06/2003. This reform was approved by Parliament on 25/05/2004. Accordingly, it is no longer possible to annul final judicial decisions establishing the right to have nationalised property restored.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures taken have fully erased the consequences for the applicants of the violations found in these cases and will prevent new, similar violations in future and that Romania has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

[2] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed.

[3] Deadline of payment of the amounts due for moral damage and legal costs.

[4] Deadline for restitution of property or payment of amounts due for material damage.

[5] Date of payment of the amounts due for moral damage and legal costs.

[6] Date of restitution of some of the contested property.

[7] Date of payment of material damage corresponding to the property which was not restituted .

[8] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed.

[9] Date of payment of the amounts due for moral damage.

[10] Date of restitution of the property.

[11] The payment includes default interests.

[12] The payment includes default interests.

[13] Date of restitution of the property.

[14] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests.

[15] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests.

[16] Date of restitution of the property.

[17] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests.

[18] The payment includes default interests.

[19] The respondent s tate and the applicant came to a friendly settlement as regards the amount of the compensation.

[20] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed.

[21] Date of restitution of the property.

Menu

CASE OF BRUMARESCU AND 30 OTHER CASES AGAINST ROMANIA

CASE OF BRUMARESCU AND 30 OTHER CASES AGAINST ROMANIA