Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Update CEDO-Anghelescu v. Romania, altele

Citeva noi cazuri privind Romania la CEDO,care pare ca a fost destul de ocupata azi cu comunicatele de presa privind noi decizii...

Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 29411/95)--Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - inca un offspring din genul celor generate de dragutule recursuri in anulare?

Stefan Anghelescu is a Romanian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Wiesbaden (Germany).

In 1994 the applicant’s mother brought repossession proceedings to recover property which the State had nationalised in 1950 by virtue of Decree no. 92/1950. She pleaded her husband’s civil-servant status and the fact that he had been a pensioner at the time, both factors which excluded him from the scope of Decree no. 92/1950. In a judgment of 7 July 1994 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed her claim and upheld her right of ownership. She then made over the property to the applicant by deed of gift. On 31 May 1995, on an application to set aside by the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court of Justice, although it had summoned only the applicant’s mother and had refused all applications for an adjournment, allowed the application and quashed all previous judicial decisions in the case.

The applicant instituted new repossession proceedings in 1998. The Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed his claim and the mayor of Bucharest ordered the restitution of the property apart from some flats which had been sold by the State to third parties in 1996. The applicant then brought proceedings to have the sales in question declared null and void and to evict the tenants. Some of these proceedings are still pending in the domestic courts.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to try a repossession case and of its refusal to allow him to participate in the proceedings. He further complained that the above judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as set forth in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

The Court considered that, in setting aside a judgment which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice infringed the principle of legal certainty and hence the applicant’s right to a fair trial. It also considered that the failure to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to try a repossession case in itself infringed the right of access to a court. The Court noted, lastly, that the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice refused to summon the applicant to appear before it, on the ground that the proceedings would show that his presence was not required, was an argument which prejudged the decision on the merits and deprived the applicant of the opportunity of defending his right.

Noting that the applicant acquired a right of ownership following a deed of gift by a person whose title to the property has been recognised by the courts and that, despite this, he was deprived of enjoyment of the property, the Court considered that the fair balance was upset and that the applicant had born and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden.

Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a fair trial and the refusal of a right of access to a court. It also concluded unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 18,755 for pecuniary damage. By six votes to one, it awarded EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 36,567 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Demetriu v. Romania (no. 32935/96) Struck out (ce s-a intimplat cu Demetriu de nu a continuat cazul? No money? No attorney?)

Sorin Liviu Demetriu is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. He made an application on 24 June 1994 to the Craiova Court of First Instance for the restitution of his father’s house, which had been expropriated under Decree no. 92/1950. He maintained that his father came within a category of people whose property was excluded from expropriation according to the decree. On 26 January 1996 the court of appeal held that the Romanian courts had no jurisdiction to examine whether the expropriation of the house contravened Decree no. 92/1950.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (access to a court). He also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as he had been deprived of his right to property without its being in the public interest and without being granting compensation.

The Court considered that, since no communication had been received from the applicant since July 1999, he no longer wished to pursue his application. As there were no special circumstances concerning compliance with the human rights guaranteed by the Convention that made further examination of the case necessary, the Court decided, unanimously, to strike out the application. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Nu am apucat sa vad daca a aparut cumva

Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 46430/99)

The applicant, Barbu Anghelescu, is a Romanian national, born in 1949 and living in Turcinesti (Romania). On 15 April 1996 he was stopped in his car during a roadside traffic test. There was a dispute with the police officers who were testing him; they struck him, causing injuries which required four to five days of medical treatment.

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant complains of the treatment inflicted by the police officers and the nature of the investigation into their conduct.

Nota noastra(cred ca avocatul a mers la ambele capete, just in case, desi eventual tratamentele inumane pot fi retinute in acest caz. Cazul insa nu mi se pare usor pentru reclamant si ramine sa vedem ce va decide sau a decis curtea...deci de urmarit, oricum)

P.S.Era sa o uit probabil pe cea mai importanta. Iat-o aici


Post a Comment

<< Home