CEDO update...

Cu ceva intirziere inca un caz romanesc pe rolul CEDO, ca de obicei legat de proprietate.

Androne v. Romania (no. 54062/00) Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
The applicants, Iulian Androne and his mother Gheorghita Androne, are Romanian nationals. They were born in 1951 and 1929 respectively and live in the United States.

They owned a house in Bucharest, which the State confiscated in 1985 when they left the country. The applicants brought several actions to recover possession of this property.

On 25 September 1997 Bucharest Court of First Instance found in their favour and ordered that the disputed property be restored to them; this judgment became final. However, on 22 November 2001, Brasov County Courtupheld an application by the Procurator-General to reopen the proceedings and ruled that the applicants’ action had been unfounded.

The applicants complained that the County Court set aside a final judicial decision in their favour following an application to reopen the proceedings; they relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). In addition, they complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that there had been an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

The Court considered that the reopening of proceedings which had ended with a final judgment, following an application to that effect submitted at a late stage, and the quashing of the final judgment in the applicants’ favour of 22 November 2001 had infringed the principle of legal certainty and thus the applicants’ right to a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.

At the same time, the Court noted that the applicants’ right of property had been established by a final judgment, and that this right was accordingly not revocable. The County Court’s judgment had the effect of depriving them of their property. In those circumstances, the Court considered that a fair balance had not been struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements to safeguard the individual’s fundamental rights, and that for more than seven years the applicants had borne, and continued to bear, an individual and excessive burden. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court decided that the Romanian State was to restore the disputed property to the applicants within three months from the date on which its judgment became final. If the property were not restored, the State was to pay them EUR 60,000 for pecuniary damage. In addition, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 6,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,054 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

Marti, 21 decembrie, a fost notificata decizia si in cazul "moldovean" de mai jos, ce ne aminteste de cazul Cumpana/Mazare:

Busuioc v. Moldova (no. 61513/00)
The applicant, Valeriu Busuioc, is a Moldovan national, born in 1956 and living in Chişinău, Moldova.

On 14 August 1998 an article written by the applicant criticising the staff management of Chişinău International Airport appeared in the Russian-language weekly newspaper Express. He was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay damages. He complains that his right to freedom of expression was violated, in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression).

si, de asemenea intr-un interesant caz ucrainian, cu bataie si la noi:

Derkach and Palek v. Ukraine (nos. 34297/02 and 39574/02)
The applicants, Valentyna Mykolayivna Derkach and Mykola Ivanovych Palek, are Ukrainian nationals, born in 1962 and 1957 respectively, and living in Vyshgorod, Ukraine.

They complain, under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), about the non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour and that they had no effective domestic remedy to recover the debts owed to them by their former employer. They further complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that they were prevented from receiving in full the money to which they were entitled.