European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Segal & Ors v Romania - 32927/96 [2010] ECHR 1865 (15 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1865.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1865

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)134¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

13 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions

(see details in Appendix)

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 quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court following applications for nullity (recursuri in anulare) lodged by the Procurator General (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 and/or 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 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 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 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;

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(2010)134

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in 13 cases against Romania concerning the quashing of final court decisions

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court, between 1996 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of SC Aledani SRL, violations of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 in the cases of Rada, Pop Valer and SC Sefer SA, and violations of both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 in the cases of Segal, Igna and Igna (Valea), Cornif, Colceru, SC Editura Orizonturi SRL, Puşcaş, SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA, Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL and Prodan).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

1. Details of just satisfaction

Name and application no.	Judgment of	Final on	Just satisfaction - Total	Payment deadline	Date of payment
Segal (32927/96)	- 17/12/2002 (merits) - 27/07/2004 (just satisfaction)	- 17/03/2003 - 27/10/2004	3,600 EUR	27/01/2005	24/01/2005
Igna and Igna (Valea) (1526/02 and 1528/02)	14/02/2008	14/05/2008	2,000 EUR	14/08/2008	13/08/2008
Cornif (42872/02)	11/01/2007	11/04/2007	162,252 EUR	11/07/2007	10/07/2007
Colceru (4321/03)	28/07/2009	28/10/2009	2,800 EUR	28/01/2010	07/12/2009
SC Editura Orizonturi SRL (15872/03)	13/05/2008	13/08/2008	45,022.93 RON and 55,000 EUR	13/11/2008	11/11/2008
Puşcaş (30502/03)	11/10/2007	11/01/2008	62,400 EUR/restitution	11/04/2008	11/04/2008
SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA (37442/03)	21/02/2008	21/05/2008	343,500 EUR	21/08/2008	21/08/2008
Rada (38840/03)	8/11/2007	8/02/2008	3,000 EUR	08/05/2008	13/05/2008 (applicant waived interests in view of small amount)
Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL (9585/04)	25/11/2008	25/02/2009	6,500 EUR	25/05/2009	21/05/2009
Prodan (26071/04)	17/01/2008	17/04/2008	6,300 EUR	17/07/2008	29/07/2008 (applicant waived interests in view of small amount)
Pop Valer (26511/04)	13/12/2007	13/03/2008	5,856 RON (to be adjusted with the inflation rate as of the dates the authorities seized each monthly instalment until payment of the full amount ) and 1,000 EUR	13/06/2008	13/08/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant)
S.C. Sefer S.A. (27784/04)	7/02/2008	7/05/2008	2,000 EUR	07/08/2008	16/09/2008 (applicant waived interests in view of small amount)
S.C. Aledani SRL (28874/04)	26/05/2009	26/08/2009	2,500 EUR	26/11/2009	08/10/2009

b) Individual measures

In the case of Segal, the European Court observed that under Law No. 10/2001, the applicant had recovered the property of which she had been deprived through the quashing of the final decision. In addition, the Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage.

In the cases of Cornif, Colceru, SC Editura Orizonturi SRL, SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA, Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL, Prodan and Pop Valer, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the quashing of the final decisions.

In the Puşcaş case, the applicant received just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property awarded to him by the quashed decision.

In the cases of Igna and Igna (Valea), Rada and SC Sefer SA, the European Court observed that the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage were not quantified and therefore it did not award any sum on that account. In the case of SC Aledani SRL, the European Court did not award any sum in respect of the alleged pecuniary damage, having noted that the applicant had not suffered any actual pecuniary damage as a consequence of the quashing of the final decision. With respect to these cases, it should be further noted that Article 322, paragraph 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal (revizuire) following a European Court’s judgment finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum.

In all cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The government referred to the measures that had been taken to avoid new, similar violations, as set out in Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 (in particular the fact that Articles 330 and 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure were repealed by Article 1 §17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28/06/2003, which received parliamentary approval on 25/05/2004).

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.