CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152 May 2012 Albu and Others v. Romania - 34796/09 Judgment 10.5.2012 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Final judgment given in brief interval before case-law conflict was resolved by the High Court: no violation   Facts – The applicants are civil servants. They brought unsuccessful proceedings against their employer, seeking the payment of allowances. The final decision in their case was given by a court of appeal in January 2009. From 2008 onwards, conflicting decisions affecting a large number of people were adopted by the domestic courts in respect of the allowances in question. In September 2009, upon an application by the Prosecutor General, the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the High Court) laid down binding guidelines for the uniform interpretation of the legal provisions at issue. Law – Article 6: The applicants had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings and been able to adduce evidence and freely formulate their defence. Their arguments had been properly examined by the domestic courts. The courts’ conclusions and interpretation of the relevant law could not be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. Furthermore, the mechanism provided by the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure and designed to resolve, and not preclude, conflicting court decisions had proved to be effective, since it had been set in motion relatively promptly by the Prosecutor General and had put an end to the divergence in the case-law in a reasonably short period of time. While the judgment dismissing the applicants’ claims had been given before the High Court had had the opportunity to give a uniform interpretation of the legal texts in issue, the approach adopted by the domestic courts in the applicants’ case was similar to that advocated by the High Court. Thus, even though the impugned judgment had been given during the period of time when the divergence still existed, there had been no breach of the principle of legal certainty. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes