Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)255[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Hauler and Stancu against Romania
(Hauler, application No. 67703/01, judgment of 12 July 2007, final on 12 October 2007 and
Stancu, application No. 30390/02, judgment of 29 April 2008, final on 29 July 2008)
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 infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the Court’s refusal to review the lawfulness of administrative decisions concerning the allocation of plots of land and the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations 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 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;
Having noted that the issue concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings, raised in the Stancu case, is examined at present within the framework of the supervision of the execution of the group of cases Nicolau against Romania (judgment of 12 January 2006);
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)255
Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Hauler and Stancu against Romania
Introductory case summary
The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the domestic courts’ refusal, between 1997 and 2001, to review the lawfulness of administrative decisions concerning the allocation of plots of land. The Stancu case concerns also the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1)
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Hauler (67703/01)
4 000 EUR
500 EUR
4 500 EUR
Paid on 28/05/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)
Stancu (30390/02)
10 000 EUR
1 000 EUR
11 000 EUR
Paid on 11/11/2008 (the applicants waived interest in view of small amount)
b) Individual measures
Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation. In addition, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage. Finally, the civil proceedings which the European Court had held to be excessively long in the Stancu case came to an end in 2001.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
1) Access to court: The cases present similarities to the Glod case (Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)25), in which the Committee of Ministers noted that the legal provision that limited the jurisdiction of courts called upon to review the lawfulness of administrative decisions concerning the restitution of land was repealed in 1997. In the Stancu case, the European Court noted that following this legislative amendment, the great majority of the domestic courts decided that they were competent to examine the lawfulness of such administrative decisions. Nevertheless, in the present cases, the courts of appeal declined jurisdiction, in 2000 and 2001, to review such administrative decisions. This being the case and in view of the direct effect of the European Convention in Romania, the Romanian authorities considered that it was necessary to disseminate the judgment of the European Court in the Hauler case to the competent courts to avoid any new, similar inconsistency. Thus, the judgment was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to its dissemination to all domestic courts, with a recommendation to discuss this judgment during activities related to continuous professional education of judges. In addition, the Court’s judgments in these cases, as the judgment in the Glod case, have been published in the Official Journal.
2) Length of proceedings: This aspect is being examined in the context of the Nicolau group of cases (1295/02).
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required 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