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 Protocol No. 1, see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Romania's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention 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 applicants 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 exercised 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 n