Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)212[1]
9 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
(see details 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;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court following applications for nullity (recursuri in anulare) lodged by the Procurator General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and/or 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 to comply with its 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 paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (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;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent State (see Appendix), 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(2012)212
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 9 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court, between 1996 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 3301 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of Leca and Filipescu and violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Baragan, Budescu and Petrescu, Falcoianu and others, Gaciu, Ionescu, Popea, S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu and Tripon No. 1).
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a)Details of just satisfaction
Name and application no.
Judgment of
Final on
Just satisfaction - Total
Payment deadline
Date of payment
Baragan (33627/96)
1/10/2002
1/01/2003
31 830 EUR/restitution
1/04/2003
27/03/2003
Budescu and Petrescu (33912/96)
2/07/2002
2/10/2002
154 617 EUR/restitution
2/01/2003
10/01/2003
(in conditions not challenged by the applicants)
Falcoianu and others (32943/96)
9/07/2002
9/10/2002
743 260 EUR
9/01/2003
20/01/2003
(in conditions not challenged by the applicants)
Gaciu (4630/03)
30/09/2008
30/12/2008
5 500 EUR
30/03/2009
26/03/2009
Ionescu (38608/97)
2/11/2004 (merits and just satisfaction)
10/11/2005 (just satisfaction)
2/02/2005 (merits and just satisfaction)
10/02/2006 (just satisfaction)
107 500 EUR (of which 100 000 EUR for pecuniary damage and 7 500 EUR for non-pecuniary damage)/restitution
10/05/2006
21/08/2008 (payment of the amount awarded as non-pecuniary damage in conditions not challenged by the applicant)
Leca and Filipescu (27949/04 and 30324/04)
19/07/2011
19/07/2011
5 000 EUR
19/10/2011
14/10/2011
Popea (6248/03)
5/10/2006
5/01/2007
110 000 EUR/restitution
5/04/2007
11/10/2007 (with default interest)
S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu (18780/04 and 13111/05)
27/03/2012
27/03/2012
44 500 EUR
27/06/2012
18/05/2012
Tripon (No. 1) (36942/03)
23/09/2008)
23/12/2008
2 000 EUR
23/03/2009
19/03/2009
b)Individual measures
In the Ionescu case, the property at issue was returned to the applicant.
In the Baragan, Budescu and Petrescu, Falcoianu and others and Popea cases, the Romanian authorities paid the just satisfaction for pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property at issue.
The European Court awarded just satisfaction covering all heads of damage to the applicants Gaciu and for pecuniary damage to the applicant Munteanu.
In the case of S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu, the European Court did not award just satisfaction to the first applicant, having noted that it did not submit any claim to this end within the time-limit set. In the Tripon (No.1) case, the European Court observed that the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage was not accompanied by the required supporting documents and therefore it did not award any sum on that account. With respect to these cases, it should be noted that Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal (revizuire) following a European Court’s judgment finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum.
In the Leca and Filipescu case, the European Court did not award pecuniary damage, having considered that the applicants should first bring a case before the domestic courts in conformity with Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The European Court awarded the applicants in the Baragan, Budescu and Petrescu, Falcoianu and others, Ionescu, Leca and Filipescu, Popea and Tripon no. 1 cases as well as to the applicant Munteanu just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The government referred to the measures that had been taken to avoid new similar violations, as set out in Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 (in particular the fact that Articles 330 and 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure were repealed by Article 1§17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28/06/2003, which received parliamentary approval on 25/05/2004).
III.Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that the measures taken have fully erased the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases and will prevent new similar violations in future and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy