Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)24[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Iorga against Romania
(Application No. 4227/02, judgment of 25 January 2007, final on 25 April 2007)
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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern: the lack of access to a court due to excessive court fees (violation of article 6, paragraph 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 judgment;
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;
Recalling that the Court dismissed the claim for just satisfaction;
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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
- of 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 this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)24
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Iorga against Romania
Introductory case summary
This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to excessive court fees (violation of Article 6§1).
By a decision of 8/09/2000 the Bucharest County Court annulled the applicant’s appeal against a first-instance judgment dismissing his action for restitution of movable property confiscated during the communist period, for non-payment of stamp duties. This decision was upheld at cassation appeal by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which noted that the Ministry of Finance had dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from stamp duty and found that the lower court had correctly applied the stamp duty law.
The European Court considered that the amount of stamp duty due (426 307 ROL, or about 21 EUR) placed an excessive burden on the applicant, as his monthly pension amounted to 444 310 ROL, or about 22 EUR. It further noted that Law No. 146/1997 (Stamp Duty Act) at the material time provided no judicial appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Finance.
I.Individual measures
The European Court rejected the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction for pecuniary damage and he did not ask for just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
Romanian law provides, in Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the possibility of reopening civil proceedings which the European Court has found to have breached a right protected by the Convention. On 06/10/2010, the authorities informed the Secretariat that the applicant’s heirs had not requested the reopening of the proceedings under this provision, but brought new proceedings against the state, represented by the Ministry of Finance. In these new proceedings, the claimants were not required to pay stamp duty.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
Law No. 146/1997 (Stamp Duty Act) has been amended. Currently, under this Act and the Emergency Regulation No. 51/2008 on legal aid in civil proceedings, transposing the European Council Directive 2003/8/CE, published in the Official Journal on 25/04/2008, courts have jurisdiction to grant stamp duty exemptions or reductions or to decide their payment in installments.
The new provisions set minimum thresholds under which legal aid (which can take the form of exemptions, reductions, payment in installments or postponement of the payment of the court fees) is fully granted and ensure the possibility to apply for review of decisions on requests for legal aid (see §23 of this judgment and §18 of the judgment in the Rusen case, 38151/05).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant’s heirs of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Romania have thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2011 at the 1108th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy