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 note this title in the land register in February 1999. On the other hand, the applicant had bought the apartment from the state in 1975 (and is occupying it) and noted his right in the land register in March 1999
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Application No. o
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Total Just satisfaction[2]
Payment Deadline
Paid on
28342/95
BRUMĂRESCU
28/10/1999, 23/01/2001 (article 41)
28/10/1999, 23/01/2001 (article 41)
59 500 USD
(-3 900 FRF) / restitution
23/04/2001[3]
23/07/2001[4]
27/04/2001[5]
17/07/2001[6]
20/07/2001[7]
29411/95
ANGHELESCU
09/04/2002
09/07/2002
75 322 €
09/10/2002
10/06/2002
32260/96
SURPĂCEANU
21/05/2002
21/08/2002
8 000 €
21/11/2002
09/08/2002
Application No. o
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Total Just satisfaction[8]
Payment Deadline
Paid on
29407/95
VASILIU
21/05/2002
04/09/2002
205 000 €
04/12/2002
04/12/2002
29968/96
HODOŞ and others
21/05/2002
04/09/2002
19 500 € / restitution
04/12/2002
04/12/2002[9]
21/09/2004[10]
29053/95
CIOBANU
16/07/2002
16/10/2002
186 350 €
16/01/2003
04/08/2004[11]
29769/96
CURUŢIU
22/10/2002
22/01/2003
44 000 €
22/04/2003
21/04/2003
30698/96
MATEESCU and others
22/10/2002
22/01/2003
2967,53 € / restitution
22/04/2003
01/07/2003[12]
28/05/2004[13]
31680/96
STATE and others
11/02/2003
11/05/2003
46 000 €
11/08/2003
01/10/2003[14]
31804/96
CHIRIACESCU
04/03/2003
04/06/2003
74 400 €
04/09/2003
11/09/2003[15]
32268/96
NAGY
26/11/2002
26/02/2003
5 400 €
26/05/2003
08/05/2003
32936/96
DRĂGNESCU
26/11/2002
26/02/2003
4 400 €
26/05/2003
08/05/2003
32977/96
GĂVRUS
26/11/2002
26/02/2003
44 000 €
26/05/2003
21/04/2003
33353/96
BOC
17/12/2002
17/03/2003
16 500 €
17/06/2003
16/06/2003
33355/96
POPESCU NASTA
07/01/2003
07/04/2003
16 523€/ restitution
07/07/2003
30/05/2003[16]
06/08/2003[17]
33631/96
SAVULESCU
17/12/2002
17/03/2003
230 062 €
17/06/2003
16/06/2003
36039/97
OPRESCU
14/01/2003
14/04/2003
3 000 €
14/07/2003
01/07/2003
31736/96
GRIGORE
11/02/2003
11/05/2003
42 000 €
11/08/2003
06/08/2003
32269/96
TĂRBĂŞANU
11/02/2003
11/05/2003
210 500 €
11/08/2003
06/08/2003
31172/96
POPA and others
29/04/2003
29/07/2003
45 672 €
29/10/2003
23/10/2003
32915/96
GHITESCU
29/04/2003
29/07/2003
5 187 €
29/10/2003
21/10/2003
38445/97
ERDEI ET WOLF
15/07/2003
15/10/2003
23 000 €
15/01/2004
15/12/2003
36017/97
DICKMANN
22/07/2003
22/10/2003
138 000 €
22/01/2004
27/02/2004[18]
35882/97
POTOP
25/11/2003
25/02/2004
28 000 €
25/05/2004
29/04/2004
38360/97
POPESCU
25/11/2003
25/02/2004
5 000 €
25/05/2004
29/04/2004
39184/98
TANDREU
25/11/2003
25/02/2004
31 608 € /
restitution
25/05/2004
29/04/2004
48179/99
SOFLETEA
25/11/2003
25/02/2004
33 440 €
25/05/2004
06/05/2004
34644/97
PAULESCU
10/06/2003, 20/04/2004
20/04/2004
120 000 €[19]
20/07/2004
14/07/2004
Application No. o
Case
Judgment of
Final on
Total Just satisfaction[20]
Payment Deadline
Paid on
29973/96
GOLEA
17/12/2002, 27/07/2004
27/07/2004
650 € /
restitution
21/08/2003
06/08/2003
16/02/2004[21]
42513/98
CHIVORCHIAN
02/11/2004
02/02/2005
6 000 €
02/05/2005
15/04/2005
39410/98
IACOB
03/02/2005
03/05/2005
253 000 €
03/08/2005
29/07/2005
b) Individual measures
In accordance with the decisions of the European Court, the state has, in all these cases, under Article 41 of the Convention, either returned the properties at issue to the applicants or paid an amount of money corresponding to the current value of the properties at issue.
Concerning the Nagy case, the Romanian authorities indicated that the land register contained two successive notations, which were not conflicting, so that the applicant is recognised in domestic law as the sole owner of the property at issue.
II.General measures
Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 2000, was repealed by Article 1 §17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 adopted by the government and published in the Official Gazette on 28/06/2003. This reform was approved by Parliament on 25/05/2004. Accordingly, it is no longer possible to annul final judicial decisions establishing the right to have nationalised property restored.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures taken have fully erased the consequences for the applicants of the violations found in these cases and will prevent new, similar violations in future and that Romania has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
[2] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed.
[3] Deadline of payment of the amounts due for moral damage and legal costs.
[4] Deadline for restitution of property or payment of amounts due for material damage.
[5] Date of payment of the amounts due for moral damage and legal costs.
[6] Date of restitution of some of the contested property.
[7] Date of payment of material damage corresponding to the property which was not restituted.
[8] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed.
[9] Date of payment of the amounts due for moral damage.
[10] Date of restitution of the property.
[11] The payment includes default interests.
[12] The payment includes default interests.
[13] Date of restitution of the property.
[14] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests.
[15] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests.
[16] Date of restitution of the property.
[17] It appears from the specific circumstances of the case that the applicant has waived his right to payment of default interests.
[18] The payment includes default interests.
[19] The respondent state and the applicant came to a friendly settlement as regards the amount of the compensation.
[20] See the judgments for details about the amounts awarded and the modalities of payment prescribed.
[21] Date of restitution of the property.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy