CEDO update

De urmarit saptamina viitoare (Marti, 9 Noiembrie) decizia in cazul

Croitoru v. Romania (no. 54400/00), o alta decizie in cazurile romanesti legate de (ne)restituirea pamintului. Ca de obicei, mai jos comentariul grefei:

The applicant, Viorel Croitoru, is a Romanian national, born in 1929 and living in Bucharest.
He complains about the Romanian authorities’ failure to enforce two final judgments in his favour concerning the restitution of land. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)

De asemenea Grefa a anuntat pe scurt (stirea apare si pe site-ul lui Andrei, Stiri Juridice)publicarea deciziilor (textul integral este disponibil in franceza)in cazurile pe care le-am anuntat cu ceva timp in urma:

Chivorchian v. Romania (no. 42513/98)
Ionescu v. Romania (no. 38608/97)

Violations of Article 6 § 1
Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Maria Arsaluis Chivorchian is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. In her capacity as an heiress, she brought an action for the return of a piece of agricultural land which the State had expropriated without paying compensation and of another piece of land of which the State had taken possession. The properties were returned to her on 30 November 1999 and 2 April 2003.
Paul Ionescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Craiova (Romania). In his capacity as an heir, he brought an action for the return of a house and adjoining land in Bucharest.
In both cases, the applicants brought proceedings in the domestic courts for the return of their properties. Their claims were upheld by court decisions which became final and unappealable. However, these were set aside following an application by Principal State Counsel for Romania.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to recognise that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to hear applications for the return of land. They alleged that the procedure in the Supreme Court of Justice was unfair, while Mr Ionescu also alleged that the Supreme Court was not independent and impartial. They further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
The Court reiterated that, by setting aside a final judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice had violated the right to a fair hearing, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ claims for the return of their properties was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Consequently, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts. In the light of those findings, it considered it unnecessary to examine Mr Ionescu’s other complaints under Article 6 and declared Ms Chivorchian’s additional complaint inadmissible.
The Court further found that the applicants’ rights of property had been established by final, irreversible judgments and were accordingly irrevocable. The effect of the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgments had been to deprive them of their properties. The Court therefore considered that the applicants had borne, and Mr Ionescu continued to bear, an excessive and individual burden. Consequently, the Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Ms Chivorchian EUR 5,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision in Mr Ionescu’s case and reserved it. (The judgments are available only in French.)

Un alt caz interesant (Romania a "cochetat"mult timp cu aceiasi idee),fara legatura cu Romania, este

Tregubenko v. Ukraine (no. 61333/00)
Mai jos comunicatul:

Violations of Article 6 § 1
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicant, Leonid Tregubenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Toronto (Canada).
From 1988 the applicant ran a business in Yalta. In January 1991 he tried to exchange 230,000 Soviet roubles in 50 and 100 old rouble notes (which had ceased to be legal tender and had been replaced by new bank notes). Yalta Exchange Commission refused to exchange the full amount because of an alleged lack of proof as to the legality of the source of the applicant’s income, and limited the exchange to 2,462 roubles. The remaining sum was not compensated.
In May 1991 the State Security Service checked the legality of the applicant’s business and found no irregularities.
On 16 October 1991 Yalta City Court ordered Yalta City Council to exchange all the money deposited by the applicant. This judgment was upheld by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and became final.
However, following supervisory review proceedings, the judgment was quashed by the Plenary of the Supreme Court on the ground that the dispute was outside the courts’ jurisdiction under the legislation in force in 1991.
The applicant alleged that he was denied access to a court and that the quashing of a final and binding court decision in his favour in supervisory review proceedings violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The European Court of Human Rights observed that, at the material time, the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Ukraine had the power under Article 328 of the Code of Civil Procedure to lodge an application for the supervisory review of a final judgment. The exercise of that power was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely. By allowing the application lodged under that power, the Supreme Court of Ukraine set at naught an entire judicial process which had ended in a final and binding judicial decision and which had also been partially executed. The Court considered that the use of the supervisory review procedure had infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s “right to a court”. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.
The Court further noted that the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s decision that it had no jurisdiction was itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account.
There being no public interest defence justifying the deprivation of the applicant’s property, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.
The applicant was awarded EUR 53,657.81 for pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

Sint interesante si cazurile poloneze legate de lungimea procedurii in Polonia (pare ca fiecare tara estica s-a "specializat" intr-o anumita incalcare, sau mai bine spus, ca avocatii fiecarei tari s-au specializat in cazuri de o anumita natura in fara curtii), si casca de cazuri turce,etc., dar poate voi avea timp sa discuta despre ele cu alta ocazie.