Communicated on 29 May 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 54640/13 Radu- Horaţiu MUNTEANU against Romania lodged on 9 August 2013

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

By a final judgment of 11 February 2013 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the extraordinary appeal of review proceedings brought by the applicant in order to have his case re-examined by the domestic courts following the Court ’ s judgment in the case of S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu v. Romania ( nos. 18780/04 and 13111/05, 27 March 2012). In its judgment the Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention, in particular of the principle of legal certainty, on account of the annulment by way of an extraordinary appeal of a final court judgment favourable to the applicant. It also considered that, in the light of its aforementioned finding, it was not necessary to examine whether there was a violation of the same article in connection to the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the final domestic court judgments favourable to him which was annulled by way of the extraordinary appeal. Lastly, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the applicant ’ s property rights.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Does the refusal of the High Court of Cassation and Justice to reopen the domestic proceedings in the light of the Court ’ s judgment in S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu v. Romania (nos. 18780/04 and 13111/05, 27 March 2012) constitute a “new issue” under the Convention falling within the Court ’ s jurisdiction? In particular, has the Court ’ s judgment in the applicant ’ s previous case cited above, created a basis for a new actionable domestic claim for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant been afforded a fair hearing and access to court in respect of such claim, as guaranteed by the aforementioned provision given the reasons advanced by the High Court of Cassation and Justice for dismissing the proceedings brought by him as inadmissible? ( see Bochan v. Ukraine (no.2) [GC], no. 22251/08, §§ 33-65, ECHR 2015)

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his claim as required by Article 13 of the Convention?