CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 25 septembre 2019

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC171EB59 { font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)224 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 12 cases against Romania   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 September 2019 at the 1355 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Jugement of Final on 23878/02 STRUNGARIU 29/09/2005 29/12/2005 35935/02 CONE 24/06/2008 24/09/2008 6098/03 DURDAN 26/04/2007 24/09/2007 23657/03 MICLICI 20/12/2007 20/03/2008 5060/02 MIHAESCU 02/11/2006 26/03/2007 12821/05 MUREŞANU 15/06/2010 15/09/2010 20763/03 VASILE NIŢESCU 21/04/2009 21/07/2009 32019/03 OCNEANU 29/07/2008 29/10/2008 9555/03 ŞTEFANESCU 11/10/2007 11/01/2008 24464/03 ŞURTEA 25/11/2008 25/02/2009 29762/02 TEODORESCU 29/07/2008 29/10/2008 35852/04 URSAN 06/04/2010 06/07/2010   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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and the violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due the failure or significant delay in abiding by final court decisions ordering the applicants’ reinstatement to posts previously held in public administrations or institutions and the payment of salary arrears and related contributions for the period they had been unemployed; having also regard to the violation of article 6, paragraph 1, found in Teodorescu , due to the quashing of a final court decision following an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted to give effect to the judgments, including the information regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2019)187 );   Considering that the question of individual measures has been resolved in these cases, given that the domestic court decisions were implemented either before or after the date of the Court’s judgments or that reinstatement was no longer possible due to objective circumstances, as established by the domestic courts;   Underlining that the closure of these cases in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures required to resolve the problem of failure or delay by the State or by legal persons under its responsibility to abide by final court decisions, to be pursued in the framework of the Săcăleanu group of cases;   Noting that the questions related to the powers of the Prosecutor General to lodge extraordinary appeals in civil disputes were resolved in the context of the supervision of the Brumărescu group of cases (Final resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 );   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.