Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)76[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Virgil Ionescu against Romania
(Application No. 53037/99, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005)
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 violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the unfairness of civil proceedings for adjustment of the amount of a debt established by a court decision in 1991 and the debtor’s failure to comply with this decision (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1), further resulting in the infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his property (violation 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 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 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 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)76
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Virgil Ionescu against Romania
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings brought by the applicant to obtain the adjustment of the amount of a debt a public body had been ordered to pay to him by a court decision of October 1991. The applicant’s claim was rejected by the domestic courts (in last instance in September 1998) on the ground that he had lodged his request for an expert report to assess the amount of the adjusted debt out of time. The European Court found however that the request had been lodged in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the result that that the incorrect dismissal of the applicant’s claim for adjustment infringed his right to a fair trial.
The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court caused by the debtor’s refusal to comply with the court decision of October 1991, which had compelled the applicant to resort to enforcement proceedings against a public body (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1).
Moreover, the European Court found that the debtor’s failure to comply with the final decision of October 1991 and the domestic courts’ failure to adjust the amount of the debt breached the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
7500 EUR
-
7500 EUR
Paid on 10/01/2006 (the applicant waved interest)
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from the violations it found. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
The government considers that the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial stems from the misapplication of the procedural provisions regulating the submission of requests for evidence. The domestic courts’ attention was drawn to the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1 set out in this judgment, through its translation and publication in Official Journal No. 0396/8.05.2006 and on the websites of the High Court of Cassation and Justice () and the Supreme Council of Magistracy (). Furthermore, the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of magistrates.
As regards the violations of the right of access to court and the right to respect for the applicant’s possessions arising from the failure of the public body to comply with the court decision ordering the payment of the debt, it should be noted that the European Court found similar violations in a number of other cases against Romania, which are currently being supervised by the Committee of Ministers within the framework of the Săcăleanu group of cases (No. 73970/01, judgment of 06/09/2005).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no other individual measure is necessary in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and that the general measures taken will prevent violations similar to that relating to the unfairness of the civil proceedings challenged by the judgment of the Court. The government will continue to make all the necessary efforts, within the framework of the supervision of the Committee of the Săcăleanu group of cases, in respect of the other violations found by the Court in the present case with a view to avoiding similar violations. The government concludes that in the present case Romania has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2011 at the 1115th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy