AFFAIRE LUNGOCI ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA ROUMANIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)68 3 cauze (Lungoci, Caracas și Bacso) împotriva României Execuția hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 6 [adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 30 aprilie 2013, în cadrul celei de-a 1169-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor] Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că Comitetul supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumită în continuare "CEDO"). Convenția mai sus și Curtea, având în vedere hotărârile definitive transmise de Curte Comitetului în cauzele de mai sus și încălcările constatate care reamintesc obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul statului pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârilor, inclusiv a informațiilor furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)155E S Luând act de faptul că măsurile generale privind încălcarea articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Convenție au fost luate și că aspectele referitoare la încălcarea articolului 1 din Protocolul nr 1 sunt examinate în prezent în cadrul supravegherii executării grupului de afaceri Strain și a altor aspecte împotriva României (hotărârea din 21 iulie 2005), DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenția în aceste cazuri și DECIDE d'en . Acțiune report Case Nos. 6 mai 2008 Lungoci v. România, 78037/01 Caracas v. România and 9293/03 Bacso v. România (numai engleză) Introductory case summary Acestea se referă la încălcarea dreptului de acces la o perioadă de timp datorată pentru dismissal, between 1998 and 2002, of their claims on the ground that they were identical with claims already determined in previous procedeedings (violation of Article 6§1). According to the findings of the Court, the aplicants had been deprived of a clear and efectiv right of access to a court, due to thefact that they had been given access to a scurt solely for the purposes of seeing their action declarad neadmissible through the operation of the res judicata provisions. Thus, in the Lungoci and Caracas cases, national scurts failed to take into account newfacts which had occurred after the original decisions, while in the Bacso case, the scurt disregarded thefact that the claim which formad the object of the al doilea action had not been examined on the merits in the first set of procedings. The Bacso case also privices the failure to restore nationalised property to the applicants as result of the Sale of the property by the state to third partis and the remuneral of the scurts to examin the applicants in set aside the contract of sari (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). II. Individual measures The European Court awarded the aplicants just satisfaction in respect of moraly damage. The sums were paid to the aplicants within the time-limits impuned by the Court (in the Lungoci and Bacso cases) or with default interest (in the Caracas case). art. 322 alineatul (2) din Codul de procedură al civililor provides the possibility to reopen civil procesedings in which the European Court has found a violation. As privices the Bacso case, the Court noted that, in subsequent proceseedings, the action to establish title lodged by the aplicants against the third partis who bought the property from the State was succesorful. Consequently, the government considers that no further measure appears necessary. III. General Measures Uită-te la încălcarea articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Convenție, la notele inițiale care se referă la un sistem sau o problemă generală în Romanian judiciary system. These cases are of particular nature as they represent an izolated wrong interpretation of the provision of Article 1201 of the Romanian Civil Code in force at the time on res judicata. Aware of thefact that res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests and that it has as primary purpose to asigura an eficient judicial system, Romanian scurts dismiss a second on such a motion only if the trial is identical to the first trial in the following manner: (1) identifical partis, (2) identifical theories of recovery, and (3) identical demands in both trials. Judgments in the Lungoci and Caracas cases ave been miros to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringoing them to the atention of all domestic scurts and public prosecutors They were publicished in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (<http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasburg.asp> and of the Superior Council of Magistracy. After their public public public public public public publicly in the Official Journal, summaries and translations of these judgments were publicished by various specialised websites, either public, e.g. Romanian Government http://www.gov.ro (Lungoci v. Romania), or privatate, e.g. www.artnet.ro http://retropedari.com http://www.infolegal.ro http://www.europainfo.ro (Lungoci v. Romania) http://www.euro avocatura.ro http://www.dreptoline.ro (Caracas v. Romania).Summaries of the trree cases above were also publicshed on http://hotararicedo.ro/ , a vast internet data base of all Court.s judgments accesibil to all free of charge. As the above-mented cases about isoted interpretation of this principle, the government considers that the translation and disemination of the Court as judgments are sucient for preventing similar disemination. The general measures needed to prevant inhibitions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 similar to the one found by the Court in the Bacso case are examined in the context of the Strein and others group of cases. IV. Concluzia Having review to the foregoing considerations, the government invitates the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of these cases.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)68

3 affaires (Lungoci, Caracas et Bacso) contre Roumanie

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

62710/00, arrêt du 26 janvier 2006, définitif le 26 avril 2006

Requête n

o

78037/01, arrêt du 29 juin 2006, définitif le 11 décembre 2006

Requête n

o

9293/03, arrêt du 4 novembre 2008, définitif le 4 février 2009)

(adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 30 avril 2013,

lors de la 1169e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu les arrêts définitifs qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

;

et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document

DH-DD(2013)155E

)

;

S’étant assuré qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est requise, hormis le paiement de la satisfaction équitable

;

Ayant noté que les mesures générales relatives à la violation de l’article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention ont été prises et que les questions relatives à la violation de l’article 1 du Protocol n

o

1 sont actuellement examinées dans le cadre de la surveillance de l’exécution du groupe d’affaires Străin et autres contre la Roumanie (arrêt du 21 juillet 2005),

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans ces affaires et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action report

Cases Nos. 62710/00 Lungoci v. Romania, 78037/01 Caracas v. Romania

and 9293/03 Bacso v. Romania

(Anglais seulement)

I.

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the dismissal, between 1998 and 2002, of their claims on the ground that they were identical with claims already determined in previous proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

According to the findings of the Court, the applicants had been deprived of a clear and effective right of access to a court, due to the fact that they had been given access to a court solely for the purposes of seeing their action declared inadmissible through the operation of the res judicata provisions. Thus, in the Lungoci and Caracas cases, national courts failed to take into account new facts which had occurred after the original decisions, while in the Bacso case, the court disregarded the fact that the claim which formed the object of the second action had not been examined on the merits in the first set of proceedings.

The Bacso case also concerns the failure to restore nationalised property to the applicants as a result of the sale of the property by the state to third parties and the refusal of the courts to examine the applicants’ action to set aside the contract of sale (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

II.

Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The sums were paid to the applicants within the time-limits imposed by the Court (in the Lungoci and Bacso cases) or with default interest (in the Caracas case).

Article 322 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility to reopen civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation. As regards the Bacso case, the Court noted that, in subsequent proceedings, the action to establish title lodged by the applicants against the third parties who bought the property from the State was successful.

Consequently, the government considers that no further measure appears necessary.

III.

General measures

1.

Regarding the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the government notes firstly that these cases do not concern a systemic or general problem in the Romanian judiciary system. These cases are of particular nature as they represent an isolated wrong interpretation of the provisions of Article 1201 of the Romanian Civil Code in force at the time on res judicata.

Aware of the fact that res judicata is intended to strike a balance between competing interests and that it has as primary purpose to assure an efficient judicial system, Romanian courts dismiss a second suit on such a motion only if the trial is identical to the first trial in the following manner: (1) identical parties, (2) identical theories of recovery, and (3) identical demands in both trials.

The judgments in the Lungoci and Caracas cases have been sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringing them to the attention of all domestic courts and public prosecutors’ offices. They were published in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the High Court of Cassation and Justice (<http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp>) and of the Superior Council of Magistracy.

After their publication in the Official Journal, summaries and translations of these judgments were published by various specialised internet sites, either public, e.g. Romanian Government’s site:

http://www.gov.ro

(Lungoci v. Romania), or private, e.g.

www.avocatnet.ro

,

http://retrocedari.com

,

http://www.infolegal.ro

,

http://www.europainfo.ro

(Lungoci v. Romania)

http://www.euroavocatura.ro

,

http://www.dreptonline.ro

(Caracas v. Romania).

Summaries of the three cases above were also published on

http://hotararicedo.ro/

, a vast internet data base of all Court’s judgments accessible to all free of charge.

As the above-mentioned cases concern an isolated interpretation of this principle, the government considers that the translation and dissemination of the Court’s judgments are sufficient for preventing similar violations.

2.

The general measures needed to prevent violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 similar to the one found by the Court in the Bacso case are examined in the context of the Străin and others group of cases.

IV.

Conclusion

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the government invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of these cases.