Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)245[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
8 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions
(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(2011)245
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 8 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 2002 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 3301 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of SC Vălie Prod SRL, violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Simion and violations of both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Gâgă, Konnerth, Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL, Raicu, Stoişor and others and Şerbănescu).
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
Gâgă (42792/02)
7/02/2008
7/05/2008
3 550 EUR
7/08/2008
4/11/2008
(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants)
Konnerth (21118/02)
12/10/2006
12/01/2007
49 200 EUR/restitution
12/04/2007
25/04/2007
(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)
Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL (37513/03)
4/10/2007
4/01/2008
446 535 EUR
4/04/2008
11/04/2008
(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)
Raicu (28104/03)
19/10/2006
19/01/2007
37 100 EUR/restitution
19/04/2007
28/03/2007
SC Vălie Prod SRL (23507/04)
23/03/2010
4/10/2010
2 115 EUR
4/01/2011
14/12/2010
Simion (13028/03)
14/12/2006
14/03/2007
40 200 EUR/restitution
14/06/2007
10/07/2007(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)
Stoişor and others (16900/03)
7/04/2009
7/07/2009
486 700 EUR
7/10/2009
9/10/2009 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants)
Şerbănescu (33945/04)
7/02/2008
7/05/2008
577 500 EUR/restitution
7/08/2008
14/10/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)
b) Individual measures
In the Konnerth, Raicu, Simion, Stoişor and others and Şerbănescu cases, the applicants received just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property awarded to them by the quashed decisions.
In the Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL case, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the quashing of the final decision.
In the Gâgă case, the European Court did not award just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, having noted that the applicants did not submit a claim to this end. In this case, 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 judgment by the European Court finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum.
In the SC Vălie Prod SRL case, the European Court did not award just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, having considered that the applicant should first bring a case before the domestic courts in conformity with Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In all cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of 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 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 had been 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 no individual measure is required in these cases apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations 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 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy