Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)19

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of
Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu against Romania

(Application No. 60868/00, judgment of 8 June 2006, final on 8 September 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 violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the unfairness of certain civil proceedings in which the domestic courts failed to address a decisive argument brought by the applicant in support of his action (violation of article 6, paragraph 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;

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)19

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu against Romania

Introductory case summary

This case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings for recovery of possession of land which had been nationalised during the communist regime, due to the domestic courts’ failure to address a decisive argument the applicant had submitted in support of his action (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).
In 1998, the Buftea Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s claims. On appeal, the Bucharest County Court subsequently reversed this judgment and found against the applicant by a decision of 8 February 1999. By a ruling of 13 December 1999, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the later decision on cassation appeal. In dismissing the applicant’s claims, the appellate courts did not address the applicant’s argument that decrees No. 218/1960 and No. 712/1966, under which the applicant’s lands had been nationalised, had been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Justice in 1993.
The European Court found that the argument in question was conclusive for the outcome of the proceedings and as such it required a specific and explicit answer from the appellate courts, the lack of which affected the fairness of the proceedings.

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit set by Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court.

b) Individual measures

The government indicated that the applicant brought new proceedings for the restitution of the property at issue under Law No. 10/2001. This resulted in the recognition of the applicant’s ownership title and the restoration of a significant part of the land he had sought to recover by bringing the proceedings at the origin of his application with the European Court. The applicant’s claims in respect of the remaining part of the land were also upheld and he was registered for award of compensation as prescribed by Law No. 10/2001. It should be noted that the issues regarding the award and the effective payment of such compensations are currently supervised by the Committee of Ministers within the framework of the Străin and others group of cases (judgment of 21/07/2005).

II.	General measures

The government considers that the violation found in this case stems from the failure of the appellate courts to observe their statutory obligation to give reasons for their decisions. In this connection, it should be noted that under Article 261, paragraph 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the courts must necessarily show the points of fact and law their decisions are based on and the reasons that led them to dismiss the parties’ claims. Thus, given the direct effect of the Convention and the case-law of the European Court in Romania, the publication and dissemination of the judgment should guarantee that the courts shall take into account the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1, set out in this judgment, thus preventing similar violations in the future. To that end, the translation into Romanian of the European Court’s judgment was published in Official Journal No. 587 of 5 August 2008 and the judgment was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy with a view to its dissemination to all domestic courts and prosecutor’s offices.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.