AFFAIRE ADRIAN CONSTANTIN CONTRE LA ROUMANIE

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2012)210 [1] Adrian Constantin împotriva României Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (solicitarea nr. 21175/03, Hotărârea din 12 aprilie 2011, definitivă la 12 iulie 2011) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede că el supraveghează executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "menționate mai jos " Convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă, care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)236E) ; reamintind 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 intergrom ; și măsuri generale pentru prevenirea unor încălcări similare ; invitând guvernul de la național pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor menționate anterior După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2012)236E S DECLARĂ că a îndeplinit atribuțiile care îi revin în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d .Action report [2] Adrian Constantin v. România (Applicarea nr. 21175/03, judgment of 12 April 2011, final on 12 July 2011 Introductory summary of the case Această rubrică se referă la unfairness of criminal proceedings which ended with the applicant. in 2002 to a suspened inchisoare sentince for negligence in the performance of his duties, as the applications rights of defence were not fully observad when the Supreme Court of Justice, sitting as last-instance scurt, changing the deliberations the legal classification of the acts the applicant was sarcinad with. The European Court found on these grounds a breach of the applicicants right to be informed in detail of the natura and caus of the acuzation against him and to be allowed aquate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b) II. As to the individual measures The Government would like to punct out that the amount awarded by the Court in its judgment of 12 April 2011 for just satisfaction was transferred to the applicicants bank account on 15 September 2011. The Government would further Recall that under Article 4081 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant can request the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings within one year as of the data the European Court. The Romanian authorities are not aware of any request for reopening having been lodged by the aplicant under the aforesaid provisions. În aceste circumstanțe, Government considers that no other individual measures are necessary in this case. III. As to the general Measures A. Publication and disemination The Romanian version of the judgment given by the European Court in this case is available on the website of the Superior Council of Magistracy (www.csm1909.ro). Moreover, the European Court mais case-law is normally presented and discussed during the initial and continuuing trening of the magistrates. B. Other general measures The Government considers no other general measures are required for the execution of this judgment, as the violation in this case did not stem from deficiencies in the legal framework governing the procesedings before the last-instance scurts. Indeed, as the Court itsself noted in its judgment (paragraph 21), Article 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the legal reclasification of thefacts by the apellate scurtes, only subject to special safeguards for the rights of the defence. Under this project, the apellate scurts are required to ask the prosecution and the defence to submit their observations on the intented classification and to information the apped that the trial can be postponed to a later date, should they need time for the preparation of their defence. The Government would like to emphasize that at at issues in this case is unlikely to reoctur, as the Romanian Judicial authorities are well aware of the European Court awares case-law and of their obligation to construition and application the domestic law in a manner that is compatibil with the requirements thereof. Hence, the general measures taken will prevent similar viols of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b). IV. Concluziile Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Government invitates the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case of Adrian Constantin v. România [1] Adoptată de Comitetul miniștrilor la 6 decembrie 2012 în cadrul celei de-a 1157-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor. [2] Numai în limba engleză

Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)210

[1]

Adrian Constantin contre Roumanie

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

(Requête n

o

21175/03, arrêt du 12 avril 2011, définitif le 12 juillet 2011)

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 qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée (voir document

DH-DD(2012)236E

) ;

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 intergrum

; 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 aux obligations susmentionnés

;

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

DH-DD(2012)236E

)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46§1 ont été adoptées

;

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

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action report

[2]

Adrian Constantin v. Romania

(Application no. 21175/03, judgment of 12 April 2011, final on 12 July 2011

)

I.

Introductory summary of the case

This case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings which ended with the applicant’s conviction in 2002 to a suspended prison sentence for negligence in the performance of his duties, as the applicant’s rights of defence were not fully observed when the Supreme Court of Justice, sitting as last-instance court, changed during the deliberations the legal classification of the acts the applicant was charged with.

The European Court found on these grounds a breach of the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to be allowed adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b)).

II.

As to the individual measures

The Government would like to point out that the amount awarded by the Court in its judgment of 12 April 2011 for just satisfaction was transferred to the applicant’s bank account on 15 September 2011.

The Government would further recall that under Article 408¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant can request the reopening of the impugned criminal proceedings within one year as of the date the European Court’s judgment became final.

The Romanian authorities are not aware of any request for reopening having been lodged by the applicant under the aforesaid provisions.

In these circumstances, the Government considers that no other individual measures are necessary in this case.

III.

As to the general measures

A. Publication and dissemination

The Romanian version of the judgment given by the European Court in this case is available on the web site of the Superior Council of Magistracy (www.csm1909.ro).

Moreover, the European Court’s case-law is regularly presented and discussed during the initial and continuing training of the magistrates.

B. Other general measures

The Government considers no other general measures are required for the execution of this judgment, as the violation in this case did not stem from deficiencies in the legal framework governing the proceedings before the last-instance courts.

Indeed, as the Court itself noted in its judgment (paragraph 21), Article 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the legal reclassification of the facts by the appellate courts, only subject to specific safeguards for the rights of the defence.

Under this provision, the appellate courts are required to ask the prosecution and the defence to submit their observations on the envisaged change in the legal classification and to inform the accused that the trial can be postponed to a later date, should they need time for the preparation of their defence.

The Government would like to emphasize that situation at issue in this case is unlikely to reoccur, as the Romanian judicial authorities are well aware of the European Court’s case-law and of their obligation to construe and apply the domestic law in a manner that is compatible with the requirements thereof. Hence, the general measures taken will prevent similar violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b).

IV.

Conclusions

Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Government invites the Committee of Ministers to close the examination of the case of Adrian Constantin v. Romania.

[1]

Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 décembre 2012 lors de la 1157e réunion des Délégués des Ministres.

[2]

En anglais uniquement