Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)222
Miu against Romania
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Application
Case
Judgment of
Final on
7088/03
MIU
06/11/2012
06/02/2013
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 November 2013
at the 1183rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
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 this case and to the violation established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide 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 the 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(2013)856);
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
Miu v. Romania
(Application No. 7088/03, judgment of 6 November 2012, final on 6 February 2013)
I.Introductory summary of the case
The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, due to the fact that the domestic courts did not examine her demands of restitution of nationalised property on the merits (violation of Article 6§1).
In the case at issue, the Court found that by not having her claims examined on the merits along with the fact that the applicant did not dispose of any concrete possibilities in order to have her restitution claim analysed, this constituted an interference with her right to access to court.
Thus, by the judgment of 22 June 1998, the Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected her action to recover the nationalised property on the grounds that her claim should have been addressed to the administrative authorities pursuant to Law No. 112/1995. After the applicant undertook the administrative steps as established by the aforementioned law, the same courts stated in the decision of 20 September 2002 that the litigious immovable was not encompassed in the ambit of the said law.
Thus, having the above-mentioned arguments into regard, the Court concluded that the applicant did not have access to court given the dismissal of her actions as inadmissible on grounds of interplay of the existing legal provisions.
II.As to the individual measures
By the ECHR judgment of 6 November 2012, the applicant has been awarded under Article 41 of the Convention, the amount of 3 000 EUR representing non-pecuniary damage for the moral prejudice she had suffered as a result of the violation of her right of access to court. The applicant was also awarded the amount of 2 000 EUR representing costs and expenses.
The deadline for payment of the sums as established by the Court’s judgment was on 6 May 2013.
The payment of the amount of 5 000 EUR has been effectuated on 24 April 2013.
At the same time, it was open to the applicant to request the reopening of the civil proceedings at issue, in conformity with Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, the applicant requested that the government agent publish the judgment at issue in the Official Gazette in order to institute a review procedure against the domestic final decision. Thus, the judgment has been published in the Official Gazette on 16 April 2013. According to the information at the authorities’ disposal, the review procedure has not been yet lodged by the applicant.
In the circumstances presented above, no further individual measures are necessary in the instant case file.
III.As regards the general measures
The government emphasises that the violation of Article 6 of the Convention, found in the instant case, sprang from wrong applicability of the internal law by the domestic courts.
Thus, the issue posed in this case is a punctual one, namely the contradictory appreciation by the courts of the applicable law in the applicant’s claim.
The aforementioned aspects render the peculiar character of this case, which should not lead to the conclusion that a widespread problem exists at the entire national level. It was only the contradictory appreciation by the courts of the applicable law that led to the breach of Article 6 of the Convention, and not the lack of internal provisions or the lack of legal means in order to have her claims examined before the internal courts.
The government would like to inform the Committee that, in order to avoid further violations of the Convention, the judgment was translated and disseminated. Thus, the translation of the judgment was published in the Official Gazette (1st part) No. 216 of 16 April 2013 and was also transmitted to the Superior Council of the Magistracy and the National Institute for Magistrates for further dissemination among magistrates. The said judgment was also widely published, either in collections of ECHR case law regarding Romania and on public internet sites, such as (site of the Superior Council for the Magistracy) and both in full and a summary thereof on /index.php/article_access/view_article/174.
These measures were aimed at raising awareness of the European Court’s case law and at ensuring that the relevant domestic law is construed in accordance with the principles set by the European Court.
Consequently, no further general measures are necessary in the instant case.
IV.Conclusions
To conclude, the government kindly asks the Committee of Ministers to acknowledge that the measures taken by the Romanian authorities complied with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the government considers that the examination of this case should be closed.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy