Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)204[1]
Begu against Romania
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights:
(Application No. 20448/02, judgment of 15 March 2011, final on 15 June 2011)
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 the above case and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)486E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to 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 its above mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)486E);
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.
Action report
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] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy