CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 2 décembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sFB4D0E3C { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sDDF70912 { color:#ff6600 } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF5DD15CD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)249 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Weissman and others against Romania   (Application No. 63945/00, judgment of 24 May 2006, final on 23 October 2006)     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 lack of access to a court and the breach of the applicant’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possession (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, and 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 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 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)249   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Weissman and others against Romania   Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to excessive court fees required for initiating domestic proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).   The applicants’ action seeking reimbursement of rent for their building, collected by the state, had been annulled, in 2000, by the domestic courts, on the ground that they had failed to pay the court fees required for bringing the proceedings.   The European Court found that the amount in question (namely the equivalent of 323   264   EUR), calculated on the basis of a set percentage laid down by law of the sum at stake in the proceedings, was justified neither by the particular circumstances of the case nor by the applicants’ financial situation. Since the amount claimed from the applicants in order to lodge their action was excessive, they were implicitly obliged to abandon the action, which deprived them of the right to have their case heard by a court. The European Court also noted that, according to the Court Fees Act (Law No. 146/1997) in force at the material time, the exemption from court fees could have been granted by the Ministry of Finance, which was a party to the proceedings. No judicial review of the decision of the Ministry of Finance was guaranteed.   The case also concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, resulting from the impossibility to claim the restitution of the rent collected by the state before the domestic courts (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In this respect, without speculating on the outcome of the proceedings on reimbursement, had the applicants’ claim been examined on the merits, the Court considered that the applicants could have argued they had a “legitimate expectation” that at least part of their claim would be determined in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code and the case-law of the Supreme Court of Justice. Yet the annulment of their action for failure to pay court fees suppressed in practice any chance for the applicants to obtain the reimbursement of the rent at stake.   I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 40   000 EUR - - 40   000 EUR Paid on 17/04/2007 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants)   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded the applicants jointly just satisfaction for pecuniary damage resulting from the lack of compensation for the use of their building by the state. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.   II.   General measures   The general measures taken by the Romanian authorities are presented in the Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)24 adopted in the case of Iorga against Romania (judgment of 25/01/2007).     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