Resolution CM/ResDH(2023)129

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Kövesi against Romania

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 June 2023 at the 1468 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

3594/19

KÖVESI

05/05/2020

05/08/2020

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and of Article 10 of the Convention established on account of the inability of the applicant, because of limitations set by a ruling of the Constitutional Court on the jurisdiction of the administrative courts in such matters, to challenge effectively the undue, premature termination of her mandate as Chief Prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, which had been prompted by the legitimate expression of her views on and criticism of legislative reforms affecting the judiciary and the fight against corruption;

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 to give effect to the judgment, and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in this case (see document DH-DD(2023)453 );

Recalling the Committee’s conclusions that the applicant’s reinstatement was not feasible, notably because she had in the meantime been appointed Chief Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that no individual measure was therefore required in response to the judgment;

Noting with satisfaction, as regards general measures, that legislative reforms which took effect in December 2022, gave full jurisdiction to the High Court of Cassation and Justice to review, under an emergency procedure, the legality and the merits of decisions to remove from office senior officeholders in the State Prosecution Service such as the applicant at the material time, and that this includes full powers to examine the legality and appropriateness of the reasons put forward by the Minister of Justice to justify such a removal proposal;

Taking note in this context of the information that officeholders in such a situation have the legal possibility to request the High Court of Cassation and Justice to suspend the effects of the removal decision, as a means to guarantee, to the extent possible, the right to reinstatement, if a removal is found contrary to the Convention or other domestic law;

Noting also with satisfaction that to counter the “chilling effect” on freedom of expression highlighted by the Court, created by the applicant’s early removal from office on other members of the judiciary, the Parliament abolished, in the framework of the same reforms, the legislative provisions enacted at the time of the applicant’s removal which had unduly restricted the freedom of expression of judges and prosecutors vis-à-vis the other branches of government;

Welcoming the prompt response thus given by the Romanian authorities to the Court’s judgment and to the Committee’s relevant calls;

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 this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.