Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)204[1]
Begu contre Roumanie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 20448/02, arrêt du 15 mars 2011, définitif le 15 juin 2011)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et les violations constatées (voir document DH-DD(2012)486E) ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences,
dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)486E) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées ;
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Action report[2]
Begu v. Romania
(Application No. 20448/02, judgment of 15 March 2011, final on 15 June 2011)
I. Introductory summary of the case
The case concerns the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, for lack of justification of the applicant’s pre-trial detention after 14 September 2001 until his conviction on 7 June 2002 and the violation of Article 1 of the First Protocol additional to the Convention for the seizure of personal goods during the house search, goods which subsequently were not confiscated by the courts nor returned in the applicant’s possession.
II. Individual measures
The applicant has been convicted to two years imprisonment. According to Article 88 of the Criminal Code, the entire length of the pre-trial detention was deducted from his sentence. He was released on 1st July 2003 after having served his sentence (see par. 59 of the judgment).
With regard to the restitution of the seized goods, the Government assert that the applicant has the possibility of lodging a request with the Prosecutor’s Office on the basis of Article 109 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecutor’s Office confirmed the fact that the applicant could obtain the restitution of the aforementioned goods if he filed a petition in this respect. So far. the applicant did not express any interest in claiming the seized goods.
The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the moral prejudice suffered as a consequence of the breach of the Convention.
The Romanian State paid the applicant the amount of 5 200 EUR for non-pecuniary damages and 1 000 EUR for costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings.
III.General measures
With a view to the violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, regarding the lack of sufficient justification for the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 14 September 2001 and 7 June 2002, the Government remind that this aspect is examined in the context of the Calmanovici group of cases.
Insofar as Article 1 of the First Protocol additional to the Convention is concerned, the Government would like to point out that the facts which caused the violation of these provisions do not represent a general situation, but a singular situation which was determined by the domestic courts’ failure to apply Article 109 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the applicant’s case. Therefore, the Government consider that the publication and dissemination of the Court’s judgment are sufficient general measures that could prevent similar violations.
The Court’s judgment was widely disseminated, as it was listed on the website of the Superior Council of the Magistracy at and it can be studied by any interested person. It was also published in the Official Journal on 26 April 2012.
IV.Conclusions
Having regard to the aforementioned submissions, the Government consider that no other individual or general measures are to be taken and they conclude that they complied with the obligation imposed by Article 46 § 1 of the Convention, kindly asking for the execution proceedings of the Court’s judgment of 15 March 2011 in the case Begu v. Romania to be decided as completed.
[1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.
[2] En anglais uniquement.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy