Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)205[1]
Bozgan contre Roumanie
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 35097/02, arrêt du 11 octobre 2007, définitif le 11 janvier 2008)
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 la violation constatée (voir document DH-DD(2012)482E) ;
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 et notant qu’aucune satisfaction équitable n’a été octroyée par la Cour dans la présente affaire (voir document DH-DD(2012)482E) ;
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]
Case of Bozgan v. Romania
(Application No. 35097/02, judgment of 11 October 2007, final on 11 January 2008)
I.Summary of the case
The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s freedom of association due to the refusal by the Romanian courts, in 2002, to register an association the applicant intended to form (the “Anti- Mafia National Guard”) on the basis of a mere suspicion that the association intended to set up parallel structures to the public prosecutors’ office and thus pursued unlawful and anti- constitutional objectives (violation of Article 11).
The European Court noted that the Romanian courts’ decisions appeared arbitrary since the articles of association indicated that it would pursue its activities within the framework of the existing legislation and would not substitute itself for state authorities (§23). In addition, before requesting registration, the association undertook no activity which might indicate that it had any anti-constitutional aims (§24). Lastly, the applicable law conferred on the Romanian courts the power to order the dissolution of an association if its aims were contrary to the law or at variance with those set forth in its articles of association. Consequently, the refusal to register the association even before it started its activities appeared disproportionate and thus not necessary in a democratic society.
II.Individual measures
A.Just satisfaction
The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient redress for any damage sustained by the applicant.
B.Individual measures
The Government would point out that the applicant can introduce at any time a new request for registration of said association. Alternatively, the applicant could request the publication of the judgment in the Official Journal and lodge an application for reopening of the impugned proceedings under Article 322, paragraph 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within one year as of the publication.
III.General measures
In its judgment, the European Court challenged the approach taken by the domestic courts when rejecting the applicant’s request for registration of said association, which it qualified as “arbitrary” (see §23 of the judgment). There is no indication that the violation stems from a deficient legal framework in the relevant field. On the contrary, as noted by the European Court, the Government Regulation No. 26/2000 on associations and foundations requires the courts to notify the applicants when the legal requirements for the registration of an association are not met and to provide them adequate time to remedy such irregularities; it is only when such irregularities are not rectified in due time that the courts can reject the request for registration, and they are required to do so by a reasoned decision (Sections 9, §1 and 10, §2 of the Regulation).
The Government considers this case to be of an isolated nature. Nevertheless, the Government took measures to ensure the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Courts. Thus the judgment was translated into Romanian and was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy for dissemination to all domestic courts. The translation of the judgment was also published on the website of the Superior Council of the Magistracy ().
Furthermore, it should be recalled that the Convention and the European Court’s case-law are the focus of specific programmes for the initial and continuing training of the Romanian magistrates (judges and prosecutors alike) organised by the National Magistracy Institute.
IV.Conclusions
The Government considers that no other individual or general measures are to be taken in the present cases and that Romania complied with the obligations imposed under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Government therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of this case.
[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