Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)93[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Surugiu against Romania
(Application No. 48995/99, judgment of 20 April 2004, final on 10 November 2004)
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 concerns the inadequacy of measures taken by authorities to stop incursions into the applicant's courtyard by third parties granted title to the land by an administrative authority despite recognition of the applicant's title by the courts (violation of Article 8, 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 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;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (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 judgment, 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) and considering the decision taken at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (3-4 April 2007), 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 ResDH(2007)93
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Surugiu against Romania
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the failure of the Romanian authorities to put an end to interference by third parties in the applicant's right to respect for his home (violation of Article 8). In November 1995, the third parties in question were granted title to a plot of land adjoining the applicant's house. They subsequently made numerous incursions into the applicant's yard to cut or gather grass, unload carts of manure, or threaten and insult him in spite of a final court decision (delivered in February 1995) granting title to the said land to the applicant's company. Criminal complaints lodged by the applicant were all discontinued, in view of the third parties' property title. On 18/05/2001, following one of these complaints, one of the third parties was ordered to pay an administrative fine of the equivalent of four euros.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
4 000 EUR
-
4 000 EUR
Paid on 29/12/2004
b) Individual measures
The Court indicated that since 18/05/2001 the applicant has no longer been subjected to any interferences related to the facts at issue in the judgment. This has been confirmed by the Romanian authorities, who have indicated that the third parties have left the applicant alone since being awarded a different plot of land. The European Court also awarded the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. In these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.
II.General measures
In order to deter future infringements of the right to respect for one's home as established by the Court's case-law, trespass is promptly and efficiently punished by the Romanian criminal system. Thus, 1097 persons were indicted for this offence in 2003, 859 in 2004 and 402 during the first months of 2005.
As regards the responsibility of the local administrative authorities who caused the controversy by delivering title to the third parties despite court decisions recognising the applicant's legal ownership (§§64-65), attention is drawn to the July 2005 reform of the Land Act (Law No. 247/2005). This law includes a provision criminalising acts of members of administrative commissions responsible for the application of this law who obstruct or unjustifiably delay the restitution of plots of land to their recognised owners, or who issue ownership titles in breach of the legal provisions.
The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the Official Journal. It was also included in a collection of judgments of the European Court published in 2006 by the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in co-operation with the Council of Europe Information Office in Bucharest, to be distributed to judges and prosecutors. Finally, the judgment is part of the syllabus of the course on the European Court's case-law, included in the curricula of the National Magistracy Institute. It seems that the situation criticised by the European Court in this case was an isolated one and therefore no further measure appears necessary.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, 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 20 June 2007 at the 997th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy