Astazi CEDO a pronuntat 11 hotarari impotriva Romaniei !!!
Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 18:03
Violation of Article 6 - 1 (fairness)
Ioachimescu and Ion v. Romania (no. 18013/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants, Constantin Ioachimescu and Marcela-Anisoara Ion, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1955 respectively and live in Constanta (Romania)
On 25 March 2002 Constanta Court of First Instance ordered the administrative board of the town to give them possession of a plot of land of 4.5 hectares in the same place as that which had belonged to their father, and to issue them with the title deeds. In spite of the applicantsn efforts, that judgment has not been executed.
The applicants alleged that the non-enforcement of the judgment in question had infringed their right of access to a court as provided for in Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
The Court considered that in refusing to execute the judgment of 25 March 2002 the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicants of effective access to a court and of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions without providing them with an explanation for the interference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 - 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court held that Romania must execute the judgment of 25 March 2002 within three months of the Courtns judgment becoming final, failing which the Government would have to pay the applicants EUR 250,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 8
Kaya v. Romania (no. 33970/05) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7
The applicant, Saban Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and currently lives in Turkey. He arrived in Romania in 2000 and married a Romanian national in 2003.
On 15 April 2005 the applicant was declared persona non grata and prohibited from residing in Romania for 15 years, on the ground that "sufficient and reliable information indicated that he was conducting activities such as to endanger national security". On 18 April 2005 he was arrested by border police and the immigration authority, and the following day he was deported to Turkey.
On the day of his removal, his lawyer appealed against the deportation order. Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The applicant complained about the deportation order issued against him. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).
The Court reiterated that a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must, among other things, be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and punish a possible abuse by the authorities.
In the applicantns case, no proceedings had been brought against the applicant for being involved in any offence in Romania or any other country. Apart from a general ground, the authorities had not provided the applicant with any other details. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had confined itself to a purely formal examination of the public prosecutorns order, without seeking to confirm that the applicant really did represent a danger for national security or public order.
As the applicant had not enjoyed before the administrative authorities or the Court of Appeal the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness on the part of the authorities, the Court concluded that the interference with his private life had not been in accordance with "a law" satisfying the requirements of the Convention. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 8.
The Court thus found that Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002, which formed the legal basis for the applicantns deportation, had not afforded him the minimum guarantees against arbitrary action by the authorities. Consequently, although the applicant had been deported in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 in that the law in question did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention.
In any event the Court considered that the Romanian authorities had infringed the guarantees to which the applicant should have been entitled under paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. The authorities had failed to provide the applicant with the slightest indication of the case against him and the public prosecutorns office had not sent him a copy of the deportation order until the day of the single hearing before the Court of Appeal. Further, the Court of Appeal had dismissed all requests for adjournment, thus preventing the applicantns lawyer from studying the order and from producing evidence in support of the appeal.
Having regard to the purely formal review by the Court of Appeal, the Court found that the applicant had not effectively been able to have his case reviewed in the light of the reasons against his expulsion. It held that there had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Kaya EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 - 1 (fairness)
Orha v. Romania (no. 1486/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants, Ioan-Alexandru Orha and Ligia-Mariana Orha, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1966 respectively and live in Toronto (Canada).
In 1996 the municipal authorities of Satu Mare decided on the expropriation, in the public interest, of several properties belonging to the applicants. They gave their consent. On 28 October 1999 a final judgment established the amount of the compensation due to the applicants and they initially received a partial payment, but they were subsequently ordered to reimburse it further to an appeal by the municipal authorities.
In spite of their efforts, the applicants have so far failed to obtain payment of the amounts awarded.
The applicants submitted that the non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour breached their right of access to a tribunal and complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
The Court considered that, by refusing to enforce the judgment of 28 October 1999, the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicants of effective access to a tribunal and of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, without providing them with any explanation for the interference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 - 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and therefore reserved it. It awarded the applicants EUR 110 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Barbu v. Romania (no. 70639/01)
Barcanescu v. Romania (no. 75261/01)
Danulescu v. Romania (no. 70890/01)
Patrichi v. Romania (no. 1597/02)
Ruxanda Ionescu v. Romania (no. 2608/02)
Sebastian Taub v. Romania (no. 58612/00)
Tovaru v. Romania (no. 77048/01)
In these seven cases, the applicants were owners of properties which were expropriated or confiscated by the State.
They alleged that the sale of their property by the State to third parties, for which no compensation had been paid and which had been endorsed by the Romanian courts, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, on the basis of Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants in the cases of Barcanescu and Danulescu and Tovaru complained about the unfairness of the proceedings to which they had been parties. In the case of Tovaru, the applicant also alleged that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The Court held, unanimously in each of these cases, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it did not need to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 - 1 and 13.
In each of these seven cases, the Court held that Romania had to return the respective flats to the applicants within three months from the date on which these judgments became final. Failing that, the Government would be required to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, the amounts indicated in the table below. The Court further awarded the applicants, for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, the amounts in euros also shown in the table. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 - 1 (fairness)
Konnerth v. Romania (no. 21118/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicant, Sofia Konnerth, is a Romanian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Fagaras (Romania).
The applicant and her husband left Romania in 1978 and settled in Germany. After their departure, their property in Brasov was seized by the State in accordance with Decree no. 223/1974. The applicant brought an action seeking the amendment of the entry in the land register.
In a final judgment of 20 April 2001, Brasov Court of Appeal acknowledged the applicantns title to the property. Consequently, in May 2001 she obtained the re-registration of the property under her name and began paying real-estate tax on it. However, further to an application by the Procurator-General to have the decision quashed, the Supreme Court of Justice, on 8 February 2002, dismissed the applicantns action for the amendment of the land register.
The applicant submitted that the annulment of the final judgment in her favour had infringed the principle of legal certainty. She alleged that there had been a violation of Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 - 1 on account of the annulment of the final judgment of 20 April 2001, in breach of the applicantns right to a fair hearing.
Moreover, the Court considered that a fair balance had not been struck and that the applicant had had to bear an individual and excessive burden in that she had been deprived of a possession without receiving compensation in an amount that reflected its true value, and on which she had been paying real-estate tax for more than a year and a half. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court held that Romania had to return the disputed flat to the applicant within three months from the date on which this judgment became final. Failing that, the Government would be required to pay her EUR 46,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Ioachimescu and Ion v. Romania (no. 18013/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants, Constantin Ioachimescu and Marcela-Anisoara Ion, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1955 respectively and live in Constanta (Romania)
On 25 March 2002 Constanta Court of First Instance ordered the administrative board of the town to give them possession of a plot of land of 4.5 hectares in the same place as that which had belonged to their father, and to issue them with the title deeds. In spite of the applicantsn efforts, that judgment has not been executed.
The applicants alleged that the non-enforcement of the judgment in question had infringed their right of access to a court as provided for in Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
The Court considered that in refusing to execute the judgment of 25 March 2002 the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicants of effective access to a court and of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions without providing them with an explanation for the interference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 - 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court held that Romania must execute the judgment of 25 March 2002 within three months of the Courtns judgment becoming final, failing which the Government would have to pay the applicants EUR 250,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 8
Kaya v. Romania (no. 33970/05) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7
The applicant, Saban Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and currently lives in Turkey. He arrived in Romania in 2000 and married a Romanian national in 2003.
On 15 April 2005 the applicant was declared persona non grata and prohibited from residing in Romania for 15 years, on the ground that "sufficient and reliable information indicated that he was conducting activities such as to endanger national security". On 18 April 2005 he was arrested by border police and the immigration authority, and the following day he was deported to Turkey.
On the day of his removal, his lawyer appealed against the deportation order. Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The applicant complained about the deportation order issued against him. He relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).
The Court reiterated that a person subject to a measure based on national security considerations must, among other things, be able to have the measure in question scrutinised by an independent and impartial body competent to review all the relevant questions of fact and law, in order to determine the lawfulness of the measure and punish a possible abuse by the authorities.
In the applicantns case, no proceedings had been brought against the applicant for being involved in any offence in Romania or any other country. Apart from a general ground, the authorities had not provided the applicant with any other details. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had confined itself to a purely formal examination of the public prosecutorns order, without seeking to confirm that the applicant really did represent a danger for national security or public order.
As the applicant had not enjoyed before the administrative authorities or the Court of Appeal the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness on the part of the authorities, the Court concluded that the interference with his private life had not been in accordance with "a law" satisfying the requirements of the Convention. It accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 8.
The Court thus found that Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002, which formed the legal basis for the applicantns deportation, had not afforded him the minimum guarantees against arbitrary action by the authorities. Consequently, although the applicant had been deported in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 in that the law in question did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention.
In any event the Court considered that the Romanian authorities had infringed the guarantees to which the applicant should have been entitled under paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. The authorities had failed to provide the applicant with the slightest indication of the case against him and the public prosecutorns office had not sent him a copy of the deportation order until the day of the single hearing before the Court of Appeal. Further, the Court of Appeal had dismissed all requests for adjournment, thus preventing the applicantns lawyer from studying the order and from producing evidence in support of the appeal.
Having regard to the purely formal review by the Court of Appeal, the Court found that the applicant had not effectively been able to have his case reviewed in the light of the reasons against his expulsion. It held that there had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.
By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Kaya EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 - 1 (fairness)
Orha v. Romania (no. 1486/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants, Ioan-Alexandru Orha and Ligia-Mariana Orha, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1966 respectively and live in Toronto (Canada).
In 1996 the municipal authorities of Satu Mare decided on the expropriation, in the public interest, of several properties belonging to the applicants. They gave their consent. On 28 October 1999 a final judgment established the amount of the compensation due to the applicants and they initially received a partial payment, but they were subsequently ordered to reimburse it further to an appeal by the municipal authorities.
In spite of their efforts, the applicants have so far failed to obtain payment of the amounts awarded.
The applicants submitted that the non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour breached their right of access to a tribunal and complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
The Court considered that, by refusing to enforce the judgment of 28 October 1999, the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicants of effective access to a tribunal and of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, without providing them with any explanation for the interference. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 - 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and therefore reserved it. It awarded the applicants EUR 110 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Barbu v. Romania (no. 70639/01)
Barcanescu v. Romania (no. 75261/01)
Danulescu v. Romania (no. 70890/01)
Patrichi v. Romania (no. 1597/02)
Ruxanda Ionescu v. Romania (no. 2608/02)
Sebastian Taub v. Romania (no. 58612/00)
Tovaru v. Romania (no. 77048/01)
In these seven cases, the applicants were owners of properties which were expropriated or confiscated by the State.
They alleged that the sale of their property by the State to third parties, for which no compensation had been paid and which had been endorsed by the Romanian courts, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, on the basis of Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants in the cases of Barcanescu and Danulescu and Tovaru complained about the unfairness of the proceedings to which they had been parties. In the case of Tovaru, the applicant also alleged that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
The Court held, unanimously in each of these cases, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it did not need to examine separately the complaints under Articles 6 - 1 and 13.
In each of these seven cases, the Court held that Romania had to return the respective flats to the applicants within three months from the date on which these judgments became final. Failing that, the Government would be required to pay the applicants, in respect of pecuniary damage, the amounts indicated in the table below. The Court further awarded the applicants, for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, the amounts in euros also shown in the table. (The judgment is available only in French.)
Violation of Article 6 - 1 (fairness)
Konnerth v. Romania (no. 21118/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicant, Sofia Konnerth, is a Romanian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Fagaras (Romania).
The applicant and her husband left Romania in 1978 and settled in Germany. After their departure, their property in Brasov was seized by the State in accordance with Decree no. 223/1974. The applicant brought an action seeking the amendment of the entry in the land register.
In a final judgment of 20 April 2001, Brasov Court of Appeal acknowledged the applicantns title to the property. Consequently, in May 2001 she obtained the re-registration of the property under her name and began paying real-estate tax on it. However, further to an application by the Procurator-General to have the decision quashed, the Supreme Court of Justice, on 8 February 2002, dismissed the applicantns action for the amendment of the land register.
The applicant submitted that the annulment of the final judgment in her favour had infringed the principle of legal certainty. She alleged that there had been a violation of Article 6 - 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 - 1 on account of the annulment of the final judgment of 20 April 2001, in breach of the applicantns right to a fair hearing.
Moreover, the Court considered that a fair balance had not been struck and that the applicant had had to bear an individual and excessive burden in that she had been deprived of a possession without receiving compensation in an amount that reflected its true value, and on which she had been paying real-estate tax for more than a year and a half. It thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court held that Romania had to return the disputed flat to the applicant within three months from the date on which this judgment became final. Failing that, the Government would be required to pay her EUR 46,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)
