These cases concern the quashing of final court decisions by the Supreme Court, between 2002 and 2004, following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General under Article 330 and Article 330 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1 in the case of SC Vălie Prod SRL, violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Simion and violations of both Article 6, paragraph 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of Gâgă, Konnerth, Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL, Raicu, Stoişor and others and Şerbănescu).
I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
Details of just satisfaction
Name and application No.
Judgment of
Final on
Just satisfaction - Total
Payment deadline
Date of payment
Gâgă (42792/02)
7/02/2008
7/05/2008
550 EUR
7/08/2008
4/11/2008
(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants )
Konnerth (21118/02)
12/10/2006
12/01/2007
200 EUR/restitution
12/04/2007
25/04/2007
(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant )
Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL (37513/03)
4/10/2007
4/01/2008
535 EUR
4/04/2008
11/04/2008
(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant )
Raicu (28104/03)
19/10/2006
19/01/2007
100 EUR/restitution
19/04/2007
28/03/2007
SC Vălie Prod SRL (23507/04)
23/03/2010
4/10/2010
115 EUR
4/01/2011
14/12/2010
Simion (13028/03)
14/12/2006
14/03/2007
200 EUR/restitution
14/06/2007
10/07/2007(in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant )
Stoişor and others (16900/03)
7/04/2009
7/07/2009
700 EUR
7/10/2009
9/10/2009 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicants )
Şerbănescu (33945/04)
7/02/2008
7/05/2008
500 EUR/restitution
7/08/2008
14/10/2008 (in conditions that seem to be accepted by the applicant )
b) Individual measures
In the Konnerth, Raicu, Simion, Stoişor and others and Şerbănescu cases, the applicants received just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage corresponding to the value of the real property awarded to them by the quashed decisions.
In the Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi SRL case, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for the pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the quashing of the final decision.
In the Gâgă case, the European Court did not award just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, having noted that the applicants did not submit a claim to this end. In this case, it should be noted that Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the applicants to lodge an extraordinary appeal ( revizuire ) following a judgment by the European Court finding a violation of the Convention, in order to obtain restitutio in integrum .
In the SC Vălie Prod SRL case, the European Court did not award just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, having considered that the applicant should first bring a case before the domestic courts in conformity with Article 322 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In all cases, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non pecuniary damage.
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II. General measures
The government referred to the measures taken to avoid new, similar violations, as set out in Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)90 (in particular the fact that Articles 330 and 330¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure had been repealed by Article 1§17 of Emergency Ordinance No. 58 of 25/06/2003 passed by the government, published in the Official Journal on 28/06/2003, which received parliamentary approval on 25/05/2004).
III. Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required in these cases apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Romania has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies