Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

Last updated: October 2018

Romania
Ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1994

National Judge: Iulia Antoanella Motoc


Judges’ CVs are available on the ECHR Internet site
Previous Judge: Marin Voicu (1996-1998), Corneliu Bîrsan (1998-2013)
List of judges of the Court since 1959

The Court dealt with 3,981 applications concerning Romania in 2017, of which 3,767 were
declared inadmissible or struck out. It delivered 69 judgments (concerning 214 applications),
55 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Applications Applications pending before the court


2016 2017 2018**
processed in on 01/07/2018
Applications allocated 8189 6484 1924 Total pending applications* 10805
to a judicial formation
Communicated to the 2214 495 177 Applications pending before a judicial 9365
Government formation:
Applications decided: 4348 3981 2440 Single Judge 168
- Declared inadmissible 3497 3383 1554 Committee (3 Judges) 8932
or struck out (Single
Judge) Chamber (7 Judges) 263
- Declared inadmissible 578 378 549
or struck out Grand Chamber (17 Judges) 2
(Committee)
- Declared inadmissible 14 6 1 *including applications for which completed application
or struck out forms have not yet been received
(Chamber)
- Decided by judgment 259 214 336
Romania and ...
** January to July 2018
For information about the Court’s judicial formations The Registry
and procedure, see the ECHR internet site. The task of the Registry is to provide
Statistics on interim measures can be found here.
legal and administrative support to the
Court in the exercise of its judicial
functions. It is composed of lawyers,
administrative and technical staff and
translators. There are currently 668
Registry staff members.
Press country profile – Romania

Case declared inadmissible for


Noteworthy cases, judgments non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
The Court, reiterating that those who wish
delivered to complain to the European Court against
a State have to first use remedies provided
Grand Chamber for by the national legal system, found that
Mr Gherghina’s reasons for not pursuing
Bărbulescu v. Romania certain legal remedies with regard to his
05.09.2017 complaints had not been convincing.
The case concerned the decision of a
private company to dismiss an employee Mocanu and Others v. Romania
after monitoring his electronic 17.09.2014
communications and accessing their The case concerned the investigation and
contents, and the alleged failure of the the length of the proceedings which
domestic courts to protect his right to followed the violent crackdown on
respect for his private life and anti-government demonstrations in
correspondence. Bucharest in June 1990. During the
Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for crackdown, Ms Mocanu’s husband was killed
private and family life, the home and by gunfire and Mr Stoica was arrested and
correspondence) ill-treated by the police.
Violation of the procedural aspect of
Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Article 2 (right to life - investigation) in
Others v. Romania respect of Ms Mocanu
29.11.2016 Violation of the procedural aspect of Article
The case concerned a request for the 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading
restitution of a place of worship that had treatment - investigation) in respect of
belonged to the Greek Catholic Church and Mr Stoica
was transferred during the totalitarian Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair
regime to the ownership of the Orthodox hearing within a reasonable time) in respect
Church. of the Association “21 December 1989”
No violation of the Article 6 § 1 in respect
of the right of access to a court Centre For Legal Resources On Behalf
Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania
breach of the principle of legal certainty 17.07.2014
Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the The case concerned the death of a young
length of the proceedings man of Roma origin – who was HIV positive
No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of and suffering from a severe mental
discrimination) taken together with Article 6 disability – in a psychiatric hospital. The
§ 1 in respect of the applicants’ right of application was lodged by a
access to a court in comparison with the nongovernmental organisation (NGO) on
Orthodox parish his behalf.
The Court further held that that it was not Violation of Article 2 (right to life), in both
necessary to examine separately the its substantive and its procedural aspects
complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective
discrimination) taken together with Article 6 remedy) in conjunction with Article 2
§ 1 in so far as it concerned an alleged Among other things, the Court found that,
difference of treatment compared with in the exceptional circumstances of the
other Greek Catholic parishes. case, and bearing in mind the serious
nature of the allegations, it was open to the
Gherghina v. Romania NGO to act as a representative of
18.09.2015 Mr Câmpeanu, even though the
The case concerned a disabled student’s organisation was not itself a victim of the
complaint that he was not able to continue alleged violations of the Convention.
his university studies owing to a lack of
suitable facilities on the premises of the
universities where he attended courses.

2
Press country profile – Romania

Sindicatul ‘Păstorul cel Bun’ v. Chamber


Romania
09.07.2013 Cases concerning right to life
The case concerned the refusal by the (Article 2)
Romanian State of an application for
registration of a trade union formed by Violation of Article 2
priests of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Ioniță v. Romania
No violation of Article 11 (freedom of 10.01.2017
assembly and association) The case concerned the death of the
The Court held that in refusing to register applicants’ four-year-old son following an
the applicant union, the State had simply operation. The applicants complained that
declined to become involved in the the authorities had failed to effectively
organisation and operation of the Romanian investigate the incident, despite their
Orthodox Church, thereby observing its repeated claims that it had been caused by
duty of denominational neutrality under the negligence of medical staff.
Article 9 of the Convention.
Crăiniceanu and Frumușanu v.
Creangă v. Romania Romania
23.02.2012
24.04.2012
The case concerned a police officer’s Deaths of two people who were shot on
deprivation of liberty in connection with a 25 September 1991 during rioting in front
largescale criminal investigation aimed at of the Government building in Bucharest
dismantling a petroleum-trafficking and the subsequent investigation (not
network. completed 20 years after the events).
Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty
and security) on account of Mr Creangă’s Panaitescu v. Romania
deprivation of liberty on 16 July 2003, at 10.04.2012
least from 12 noon to 10 p.m., and his The case concerned the applicant’s
placement in pre-trial detention on 25 July complaint about the Romanian authorities’
2003 failure to provide him with specific anti-
No violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of cancerous medication for free.
Mr Creangă’s deprivation of liberty from 10
Predică v. Romania
p.m. on 16 July 2003 to 10 p.m. on 18 July
2003 07.06.2011
The case concerned the official explanation
Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania for the violent death of a 20 year old man
17.12.2004 in prison.
Conviction of journalists for insult and
Iorga and Others v. Romania
defamation after publishing an article in
which they questioned the legality of a 25.01.2011
contract signed by Constanţa City Council. Death in prison, after being assaulted by
Violation of Article 10 (freedom of fellow inmates, of the applicants’ relative,
expression) who had been given a short sentence for
not paying a fine of about 20 euros and
Brumărescu v. Romania
who was an alcoholic.
28.10.1999
Refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to Carabulea v. Romania
recognise that the lower courts had 13.07.2010
jurisdiction to deal with a claim for recovery The case concerned a Roma robbery
of possession. suspect who was tortured in police custody
Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and refused contact with his family. He died
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in intensive care.
(protection of property) Lazăr v. Romania
16.02.2010
Case concerning the forensic medical
reports in the investigation into a young
man’s death in hospital.

-3-
Press country profile – Romania

Velcea and Mazăre v. Romania Investigations into injuries and deaths


01.12.2009 related to the 1989 anti-communist
Refusal of the domestic courts to declare a demonstrations in Timişoara.
murderer unworthy of inheriting, because Agache and Others v. Romania
he had committed suicide and had
20.10.2009
therefore never actually been convicted.
Investigation into the death of an officer
killed in the anti-communist demonstrations
Cases concerning the 1989 in Târgu-Secuiesc on 22 December 1989.
anti-communist demonstrations
Alecu and Others v. Romania Right to life and prohibition of inhuman
27.01.2015 or degrading treatment
The applicants are the victims or heirs of (Articles 2 and 3)
victims of the armed crackdown on
demonstrations against the communist
Attacks on Roma villages and destruction of
dictatorship, beginning on 21 December
houses and possessions
1989 in Bucharest and in other cities in the
country, which led to the collapse of the Costică Moldovan and Others v.
regime. The case concerns the investigation Romania
into those events. 15.02.2011
Violation of Article 2 (investigation) This application concerned difficulties with
Violation of Article 3 (investigation) the execution of Moldovan (no. 2) and
Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania, judgment of 12 July
Others v. Romania 2005 (see below).
The Court declared the application
24.05.2011
inadmissible.
The case concerned the crackdown on anti-
See also Moldovan and Others v.
government demonstrations in Romania in
Romania, inadmissibility decision of
December 1989.
17 April 2012.
Violation of Article 2 on account of the lack
of an effective investigation into the death Gergely v. Romania and Kalanyos and
of the son of applicants; violation of Article Others v. Romania
8 (right to respect for private life and 26.04.2007
correspondence) on account of secret These cases concerned the burning of
surveillance measures houses belonging to Roma villagers by local
The Court noted that its finding of a population, the poor living conditions of the
violation of Article 2 related to a wide-scale victims and the authorities’ failure to
problem, given that many hundreds of prevent the attack and to carry out an
people were involved as injured parties in adequate criminal investigation, depriving
the impugned criminal proceedings. It the applicants of their right to bring a civil
added that general measures at domestic action to establish liability and recover
level would unquestionably be necessary in damages.
the context of the execution of this The Court decided to strike the applications
judgment. out of its list of cases following a unilateral
In the 3 cases below, the Court found a declaration by the Romanian Government.
violation of Article 2 (lack of an effective See also Tănase and Others v. Romania,
remedy) judgment (striking out) of 26 May 2009.
Lăpuşan and Others v. Romania Moldovan (no. 2) and Others v.
08.03.2011 Romania
Proceedings brought by nine applicants 12.07.2005
seeking compensation for violence suffered In September 1993 three Roma men were
during the repression of anti-communist attacked in the village of Hădăreni by a
demonstrations in Cluj-Napoca in 1989. large crowd of non-Roma villagers,
Șandru and Others v. Romania including the local police commander and
08.12.2009 several officers: one burnt to death, the
other two were beaten to death by the

-4-
Press country profile – Romania

crowd. The applicants alleged that the D.M.D. v. Romania (no. 23022/13)
police then encouraged the crowd to 03.10.2017
destroy other Roma properties: in total 13 The case concerned the proceedings
Roma houses in the village were completely brought by a son against his father for
destroyed. Hounded from their village and domestic abuse. The proceedings lasted
homes, the applicants were then obliged to over eight years and ended in the father’s
live in crowded and unsuitable conditions – conviction of physically and mentally
cellars, hen-houses, stables. Following abusing his child. D.M.D., the applicant,
criminal complaints brought by the complained that those proceedings had
applicants, some were awarded damages been ineffective and that he had not been
ten years later. awarded damages. In particular, the
Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of domestic courts had found at last instance
inhuman or degrading treatment) that they did not have to examine the issue
Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for of compensation as neither he nor the
private and family life and home) prosecutor had made such a request before
No violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to the lower courts.
court) of the Convention The Court recalled in particular that
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair Member States should strive to protect
trial) of the Convention on account of the children’s dignity and that, in practice, this
length of the proceedings required an adequate legal framework to
Violation of Article 14 (prohibition of protect children against domestic violence.
discrimination) taken in conjunction with
Articles 6 § 1 and 8. Alexandru Enache v. Romania
See also Moldovan (no. 1) and Others v. 03.10.2017
Romania, judgment (friendly settlement) The case concerned, on the one hand, a
of 5 July 2005, and Lăcătuş and Others v. prisoner’s complaint about his conditions of
Romania, judgment of 13 November 2012. detention and, on the other, his complaint
about discrimination on grounds of sex
stemming from the fact that under
Cases concerning inhuman or Romanian legislation, only convicted
degrading treatment (Article 3) mothers of children under the age of one
can obtain a stay of execution of their
Violation of Article 3 prison sentences until their child’s first
Al Nashiri v. Romania birthday.
31.05.2018 Bălșan v. Romania
The case concerned the applicant’s 23.05.2017
allegations that Romania had let the United The case concerned an allegation of
States Central Intelligence Agency (the domestic abuse.
CIA) transport him under the secret Ms Bălșan alleged that the authorities had
extraordinary rendition programme onto its failed to protect her from her husband’s
territory and had allowed him to be violent behaviour and to hold him
subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary accountable, despite her numerous
detention in a CIA detention “black site”. complaints.
He also complained that Romania had failed
to carry out an effective investigation into I.C. v. Romania (no. 36934/08)
his allegations. 24.05.2016
The case concerned a complaint about the
Dorneanu v. Romania
inadequacy of the investigation into a
28.11.2017 14-year old girl’s allegation of rape.
The case concerned the living conditions
and care provided to a prisoner, M.C. and A.C. v. Romania
Mr Dorneanu, who was suffering from (no. 64602/12)
terminal metastatic prostate cancer. He 12.04.2016
died after eight months in detention. The case concerned the applicants’
complaint that they had been attacked on
their way home from a gay march and that

-5-
Press country profile – Romania

the ensuing investigation had been Stoica v. Romania


inadequate. 04.03.2008
M. G. C. v. Romania (no. 61495/11) Clash between police officers and people of
Roma origin outside a bar during which the
15.03.2016
14-year-old applicant was ill-treated by the
The case concerned an allegation of
police.
defective legislation for the prosecution of
rape and/or sexual abuse of children in Cobzaru v. Romania
Romania. 26.07.2007
Grămadă v. Romania The case concerned the applicant’s alleged
ill-treatment by the police.
11.02.2014
The case concerned the shooting of Pantea v. Romania
Mr Grămadă by a police officer during the 03.06.2003
arrest of a man who was on the run and Former public prosecutor remanded in
took refuge in Mr Grămadă’s home. custody.
C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania (no.
26692/05) Examples of cases concerning
20.03.2012 conditions of detention
The case concerned a seven-year-old’s
Kanalas v. Romania
complaint that it had taken the authorities
five years to investigate his repeated rape 06.12.2016
by a man, eventually acquitted, who had The case concerned the conditions in which
forced his way into the family flat when the Mr Kanalas was held in the prisons of
boy had come home alone from school in a Oradea and Rahova, and the rejection by
period from January to April 1998. the prison administration of his request for
leave in order to attend his mother’s
Parascineti v. Romania funeral.
13.03.2012 Violation of Article 3
Placement of applicant in psychiatric Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for
institution. private and family life)
The Court found – as it had already found
M. and C. v. Romania (no. 29032/04)
in respect of the same prisons – that the
27.09.2011 conditions of the applicant’s detention
Allegations that a three-year old boy was breached Article 3 of the Convention.
sexually abused amidst acrimonious
proceedings between his parents over Apostu v. Romania
custody and contact rights. 03.02.2015
The case concerned the pre-trial detention
Archip v. Romania
conditions of a former mayor accused of
27.09.2011 corruption and his allegation that part of
Applicant’s allegation that he had been the case file was leaked to the media.
taken to his local police station and Violation of Article 3
handcuffed to a tree for nearly three hours Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for
for complaining about a reduction in his private and family life, the home and the
sickness benefit. correspondence)
Jiga v. Romania Florin Andrei v. Romania
16.03.2010 15.04.2014
The case concerned the obligation for a The case concerned the physical conditions
defendant (Director General of the of the applicant’s detention in a cell at
Economic and Budgetary Directorate at the Constanţa police station for two months in
Ministry of Agriculture and Food) to wear 2005, in particular overcrowding, poor
prison clothing in court, the prolongation of sanitary conditions and lack of access to a
his pre-trial detention and his conditions in toilet.
detention. Violation of Article 3

-6-
Press country profile – Romania

Remus Tudor v. Romania Cases concerning medical care in detention


15.04.2014
The case concerned the applicant’s Gavriliţă v. Romania
conditions of detention, in particular 22.06.2010
overcrowding and poor hygiene, when Alleged failure of authorities to provide sick
serving his sentence in Jilava Prison from prisoner with medical care.
April 2009 to November 2011. No violation of Article 3
Violation of Article 3
Also see Gagiu v. Romania (24.02.2009)
Stanciu v. Romania
and Petrea v. Romania (29.04.2008)
24.07.2011
The case concerned the applicant’s Cases concerning non-smokers in detention
conditions of detention in several Romanian
prisons, in particular overcrowding, bad Elefteriadis v. Romania
hygiene conditions and inadequate medical 25.01.2011
treatment. Applicant’s exposure to fellow prisoners’
Violation of Article 3 tobacco smoke in shared cells, while being
Noting that there were 80 similar transported to court and in the waiting
applications against Romania concerning areas before his court appearances.
this issue pending before the Court, the Violation of Article 3
Court pointed out that this case reflected a
Florea v. Romania
common problem in Romanian prisons and
that, despite efforts to improve the 14.09.2010
situation, Romania had to take further Overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions
steps, including a compensation scheme. in detention, including subjection to passive
smoking.
Ciupercescu v. Romania Violation of Article 3
15.06.2010
The applicant, in pre-trial detention,
Cases concerning right to liberty and
objected that he had been placed under the
security (Article 5)
detention regime for dangerous prisoners
involving, in particular unannounced body Al Nashiri v. Romania
searches on a weekly basis and whenever 31.05.2018
he left the prison. The case concerned the applicant’s
No violation of Article 3 as regards the allegations that Romania had let the United
applicant’s classification as a dangerous States Central Intelligence Agency (the
prisoner CIA) transport him under the secret
Two violations of Article 3 as regards the extraordinary rendition programme onto its
applicant’s detention regime following his territory and had allowed him to be
classification as a dangerous prisoner and subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary
the conditions of his detention in detention in a CIA detention “black site”.
Bucharest-Jilava Prison (overcrowding) He also complained that Romania had failed
Brânduşe v. Romania to carry out an effective investigation into
his allegations.
07.04.2009
Violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and
Conditions of detention and detrimental
security), Article 8 (right to respect for
effect on private life of offensive smells
private life), and Article 13 (right to an
produced by a city-run refuse site 20
effective remedy) in conjunction with
metres from the prison.
Articles 3, 5 and 8
Violation of Article 3
Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for N. v. Romania (no. 59152/08)
private and family life) 28.11.2017
The case concerned the detention of a
person suffering from psychiatric disorders.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy
review of the lawfulness of detention)

-7-
Press country profile – Romania

Under Article 46 (binding force and In this case, the Court focused on the
execution of judgments), the Court held, application of the legislation in force at the
firstly, that the authorities should relevant time (currently amended)
implement without delay the County Court’s concerning summoning by way of posting.
judgment of 21 February 2017 ordering N.’s
Popa and Tănăsescu v. Romania
release in conditions meeting his needs;
and secondly, that the deficiencies 10.04.2012
identified in his case were likely to give rise The case concerned the applicants’
to other well-founded applications. complaint that the last instance national
court deciding in a criminal case against
C.B. v. Romania (no. 21207/03) them convicted them without giving them
20.04.2010 the possibility to defend themselves in
Psychiatric detention of a man charged with person and to submit evidence.
maliciously accusing a police officer.
Ştefănică and Others v. Romania
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4
02.11.2010
Case concerning the compensation granted
Cases concerning Article 6 for dismissal to 18 former employees of a
former State-owned bank, which was
Right to a fair trial involved in a restructuring process in 1998
and 1999 which entailed hundreds of
Violation of Article 6 dismissals. The applicants complained that
Ovidiu Cristian Stoica v. Romania the domestic courts’ decisions with regard
to the granting of compensation for
24.04.2018
dismissal had been inconsistent, even
The case concerned Mr Stoica’s conviction
though the claims had been brought by
by an appeal court of the dissemination of
people in similar situations and had
obscene images (sexual intercourse
involved similar legal issues.
between him and his former partner)
without a renewed hearing of the witnesses Albert v. Romania
and on the basis of the same evidence 16.02.2010
which had been deemed insufficient by the Proceedings against a mayor for removing
firstinstance court having acquitted him. the Romanian flag from his town hall and
S.C. Uzinexport S.A. v. Romania translating the town’s name into Hungarian.
31.03.2015 Tudor Tudor v. Romania
The case concerned the dismissal of a claim 24.03.2009
by a company seeking to obtain default Action for recovery of possession of a flat
interest for late payment in respect of a bought from the State
sum owed to it by the State.
Beian v. Romania
Roşiianu v. Romania 06.12.2007
24.06.2014 The case concerned proceedings relating to
The case concerned the refusal by the social benefits for forced labour during the
mayor of Baia Mare to disclose information applicant’s military service.
about the use of public money by the
municipal administration to a journalist who Lupaș and Others v. Romania
had submitted a request to that effect. The 14.12.2006
mayor had also refused to comply with Dismissal of the applicants’ actions to
court decisions ordering him to hand over recover confiscated property by the Court
the information. of Cassation pursuant to the unanimity
rule, which did not allow undivided property
S.C. Raisa M. Shipping. S.R.L. v. to be claimed without the participation of all
Roumanie the joint owners.
08.07.2013
The case concerned proceedings brought by
the applicant company against the Galați No violation of Article 6
River Administration of the Lower Danube
Galați regarding river tax billing.

-8-
Press country profile – Romania

Telbis and Viziteu v. Romania detention in a CIA detention “black site”.


26.06.2018 He also complained that Romania had failed
The case concerned the seizure of cash and to carry out an effective investigation into
property from the applicants on the his allegations.
suspicion that they had benefited from Vlad and Others v. Romania
bribes taken by a close relative, a doctor
26.11.2013
who made decisions on work capacity in a
The case concerned the length of legal
pensions office. He later admitted to the
proceedings that the three applicants had
charges and was sentenced to three years
been involved in before the Romanian
in prison.
courts, and the remedy available for their
Dragoş Ioan Rusu v. Romania excessive length.
31.10.2017 Due to there being 500 similar cases
The case concerned a university against Romania currently pending before
researcher’s conviction for trafficking the European Court concerning excessive
Diazepam via his local post office. Mr Rusu, length of criminal and civil proceedings, the
the applicant, alleged in particular that his Court held that there was a systemic
conviction had been unfair because it was problem which required further reforms of
based on unlawfully obtained evidence, the legal system in order for the right to a
namely envelopes seized by the prosecuting fair trial within a reasonable time to be
authorities at the post office without the secured in Romania.
approval of a court. Codarcea v. Romania
Albu and Others v. Romania 02.06.2009
10.05.2012 Length of proceedings in a case of medical
The case concerned the complaints of negligence and applicant’s inability to
64 civil servants that their claims for obtain the compensation awarded to her by
salary-related benefits were wrongfully a court because of the doctor’s insolvency.
dismissed in an unfair trial, notably alleging The domestic courts refused to recognize
that the national courts had not taken into the liability of the hospital.
consideration other rulings on similar claims Abramiuc v. Roumania
brought by their fellow civil servants across
24.02.2009
the country in which such benefits had been
Non execution of a final decision ordering
granted.
the payment of royalties to the applicant for
See also cases in which the Court applied
the period of time his invention had been
its case-law following the Court’s judgment
used; length of two sets of proceedings and
in the case Albu:
the applicant’s impossibility to complain of
Frimu and Others v. Romania
that length under Romanian law.
Tunaru v. Romania
13.11.2012 (decision on the admissibility) Right of access to Court
Neghea and Others v. Romania
Radu and Others v. Romania Violation of Article 6
11.09.2012 (decision on the admissibility)
Reformed Church Foundation for
Right to a fair trial within a reasonable time Student Housing and Stanomirescu v.
Romania
Violation of Article 6 07.01.2014
These cases concerned the systemic issue
Al Nashiri v. Romania of the non-execution by the Romanian
31.05.2018 authorities of binding and enforceable
The case concerned the applicant’s domestic decisions given against State
allegations that Romania had let the United authorities and in favour of an NGO and an
States Central Intelligence Agency (the individual applicant.
CIA) transport him under the secret
extraordinary rendition programme onto its
territory and had allowed him to be
subjected to ill-treatment and arbitrary

-9-
Press country profile – Romania

Weissman and Others v. Romania Zaieţ v. Romania


24.05.2006 24.03.2015
Large stamp duty required to initiate The case concerned the annulment of a
proceedings (EUR 323,264). woman’s adoption, at the instigation of her
adoptive sister, 31 years after it had been
Presumption of innocence approved and 18 years after the death of
their adoptive mother.
Neagoe v. Romania
This was the first occasion on which the
21.07.2015 Court had to consider the annulment of an
The case concerned a statement made by adoption order in a context where the
the spokesperson of the Court of Appeal adoptive parent was dead and the adopted
before the latter had conducted its child had long reached adulthood.
deliberations, encouraging the public to
consider the applicant, Mr Neagoe, guilty of Ostace v. Romania
– among other things – manslaughter. 25.02.2014
Violation of Article 6 § 2 The case concerned Mr Ostace’s inability to
obtain the revision of a judgment
Case on Article 7 (no punishment
establishing his paternity in spite of an
without law)
extra-judicial forensic examination proving
Plechkov v. Romania the contrary. The request was rejected on
16.09.2014 the ground that the document in question
The case concerned the sentencing of did not exist at the time of the initial
Mr Plechkov to a suspended prison term proceedings.
together with the confiscation of his boat Hulea v. Romania
(including the installations, tools and cargo
02.10.2012
on board) for allegedly fishing illegally
The case concerned the refusal of the
within the Romanian “exclusive economic
Defence Ministry to grant Mr Hulea parental
zone” in the Black Sea.
leave on the grounds that by law such leave
Violation of Article 7 (no punishment
was granted only to female personnel.
without law)
Romanian translation of this judgment
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(protection of property) Karrer v. Romania
21.02.2012
Cases concerning private and family The case concerned a complaint by a father
life (Article 8) and his daughter about international child
abduction proceedings before the Romanian
Violation of Article 8 courts.

Dragoş Ioan Rusu v. Romania A.M.M. v. Romania (no. 2151/10)


31.10.2017 14.02.2012
The case concerned a university The case concerned paternity proceedings
researcher’s conviction for trafficking brought by the mother of a minor with
Diazepam via his local post office. Mr Rusu, disabilities, who was herself severely
the applicant, alleged in particular that his disabled.
conviction had been unfair because it was Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v.
based on unlawfully obtained evidence, Romania
namely envelopes seized by the prosecuting 26.07.2011
authorities at the post office without the 71-year-old woman, who was left disabled
approval of a court. after being attacked by a pack of stray
M. G. C. v. Romania (no. 61495/11) dogs.
15.03.2016 Press release in Romanian
The case concerned an allegation of Geleri v. Romania
defective legislation for the prosecution of 15.02.2011
rape and/or sexual abuse of children in Expulsion of a political refugee on the
Romania. grounds of national security, under an
order that did not set out reasons.

- 10 -
Press country profile – Romania

Băcilă v. Romania Pini and Bertani & Manera and Atripaldi


30.03.2010 v. Romania
Effects on the applicant’s health and living 22.06.2004
environment of the pollution generated by a Refusal of institution for orphaned and
plant producing lead and zinc. abandoned children to hand Romanian
children adopted by the applicants (four
Haralambie v. Romania
Italian nationals).
27.10.2009
Obstacles encountered by the applicant to
access to the personal file created on him
by the former secret services of the Freedom of expression cases
Communist Regime (the Securitate). (Article 10)

Tătar v. Romania Violation of Article 10


27.01.2009
Pollution generated by a technological Gîrleanu v. Romania
process used by a company to exploit the 26.06.2018
Baia Mare gold mine. The case concerned the arrest and
conviction of a journalist for possessing and
Petrina v. Romania trying to verify classified information on
14.10.2008 national security, namely documents
Allegations that the applicant was a belonging to a Romanian military unit
member of the former Secret Services of based in Afghanistan.
the Communist Regime - the Securitate.
Bucur and Toma v. Romania
Dumitru Popescu v. Romania 08.01.2013
26.04.2007 Agent of the intelligence-gathering services
Use of telephone tapping in the course of (Mr Bucur) sentenced in criminal
an investigation. proceedings for having communicated to
the media audio tapes involving politicians
No violation of Article 8 and journalists.
Achim v. Romania Frăsilă and Ciocîrlan v. Romania
24.10.2017 10.05.2012
The case concerned the placement in care The case concerned the enforcement of a
of Ms and Mr Achim’s seven children on the court decision giving journalists the right of
grounds that the couple had not been access to the premises of a local radio
fulfilling their parental duties and station where they worked.
obligations.
Andreescu v. Romania
Naidin v. Romania 08.06.2010
21.10.2014 Conviction of a well-known human rights
The case concerned the barring of a activist for remarks concerning the agency
one-time informer of the Romanian political managing the intelligence service’s archives
police from employment in the public (the “CNSAS”: the National Council for the
service. Study of the Archives of the Securitate, the
Knecht v. Romania Romanian intelligence service under the
former regime).
02.10.2012
The applicant complained that she had
No violation of Article 10
been prevented from becoming a mother by
means of in vitro fertilisation due to the Catalan v. Romania
State’s refusal to transfer embryos she had 09.01.2018
deposited with a private clinic and which, The case concerned the dismissal of a civil
when the clinic came under criminal servant (Mr Catalan), who worked for the
investigation, had been seized and National Council for the Study of Securitate
deposited at the Institute of Forensic Archives (CNSAS), for disclosing
Medicine, which had not been authorised to information for the publication of an article
function as a genetic bank. claiming that a religious leader had

- 11 -
Press country profile – Romania

collaborated with the Securitate (the former No violation of the Article 6 § 1 in respect
political police under the communist of the right of access to a court
regime). Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the
breach of the principle of legal certainty
Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the
Case dealing with freedom of assembly
length of the proceedings
and association (Article 11)
No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of
Manole and “Romanian Farmers Direct” discrimination) taken together with Article 6
v. Romania § 1 in respect of the applicants’ right of
16.06.2015 access to a court in comparison with the
The case concerned the refusal to register Orthodox parish
the union of self-employed farmers which The Court further held that that it was not
Mr Manole wished to set up. necessary to examine separately the
No violation of Article 11 complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) taken together with Article 6
§ 1 in so far as it concerned an alleged
Effective remedy rights (Article 13) difference of treatment compared with
Brudan v. Romania other Greek Catholic parishes.
10.04.2018
See also Moldovan (no. 2) and Others v.
The case concerned the length of the
Romania, judgment of 12 July 2005.
criminal proceedings brought against the
applicant, which began on 23 March 2000
and ended on 18 June 2014. Cases dealing with property issues
Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
remedy)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
within a reasonable time)
Catholic Archdiocese of Alba Iulia v.
Romania
Cases dealing with Article 14 25.09.2012
(prohibition of discrimination) The case concerned a Catholic religious
Cernea v. Romania community which wished to recuperate,
under an emergency order enacted in 1998,
27.02.2018
ownership of assets confiscated by the
The case concerned the rejection of the
Romanian authorities during the communist
candidature of Mr Cernea – the Executive
period.
President of the ecologist party Partidul
Verde at the time – for 17 January 2010 Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania
by-elections on the grounds that he was 02.11.2006
not standing for a party represented in Prolonged inability of the applicants to
Parliament. The decision was made under a enjoy the use of formerly confiscated
law which had been amended less than a property that had been legally returned to
year before the by-elections under an them, because of the impossibility of
organic law. evicting a tenant occupying the flat.
No violation of Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3
of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) Cases dealing with the right to free
elections (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1)
Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and
Others v. Romania Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
29.11.2016
Danis and Association of Ethnic Turks
The case concerned a request for the
v. Romania
restitution of a place of worship that had
belonged to the Greek Catholic Church and 21.04.2015
was transferred during the totalitarian The case concerned the applicant
regime to the ownership of the Orthodox association’s inability to meet the
Church. requirements for standing in the 2008
parliamentary elections following the entry

- 12 -
Press country profile – Romania

into force of a new electoral law only seven unavoidable level of suffering inherent in
months before the elections. The new law detention.
required national minority organisations not Under Article 46 (binding force and
represented in Parliament to have been execution of judgments), the Court decided
granted charitable status in order to be able to apply the pilot-judgment procedure,
to stand for election. finding that the applicants’ situation was
part of a general problem originating in a
Grosaru v. Romania
structural dysfunction specific to the
02.03.2010 Romanian prison system.
Refusal to allocate a seat as Member of The Court held that the State should
Parliament under an electoral law. introduce: (1) measures to reduce
overcrowding and improve the material
No-violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 conditions of detention; and (2) remedies
Cernea v. Romania (a preventive remedy and a specific
27.02.2018 compensatory remedy).
The case concerned the rejection of the The Court decided to adjourn the
candidature of Mr Cernea – the Executive examination of similar applications that had
President of the ecologist party Partidul not yet been communicated to the
Verde at the time – for 17 January 2010 Romanian Government and to continue its
by-elections on the grounds that he was examination of applications that had
not standing for a party represented in already been communicated. Within six
Parliament. The decision was made under a months from the date on which the
law which had been amended less than a judgment became final, the Romanian
year before the by-elections under an Government had to provide, in cooperation
organic law. with the Committee of Ministers, a precise
timetable for the implementation of the
general measures.
Pilot judgment procedure 1
Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania
Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania 12.10.2010
25.04.2017 (pilot judgment) 2 Cases concerning the restitution of
The case concerned the conditions of properties nationalised under communism.
detention in Romanian prisons and in The Court has already found over
detention facilities attached to police 150 violations in cases of this kind 3, and
stations. several hundred similar cases are pending
The applicants complained, among other before it.
things, of overcrowding in their cells, Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair
inadequate sanitary facilities, lack of hearing) - concerning Mrs Atanasiu and Mrs
hygiene, poor-quality food, dilapidated Poenaru
equipment and the presence of rats and Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
insects in the cells. (protection of property) – concerning the
Under Article 3, the Court held in particular three applicants
that the conditions of the applicants’ In this pilot judgment, the Court adjourned
detention, also taking into account the the cases concerning properties
length of their incarceration, had subjected nationalised during the communist era in
them to hardship going beyond the Romania pending general measures at
national level. A new extension of time-limit
for implementation of general measures to
1
The pilot judgment procedure was developed as a resolve shortcomings in the system of
technique of identifying the structural problems restitution or compensation in respect of
underlying repetitive cases against many countries and properties nationalised by the Romanian
imposing an obligation on States to address those
problems.
State has been granted to the Romanian
2 Government. On 7 May 2013, the Court
The pilot judgment procedure was developed as a
technique of identifying the structural problems
3
underlying repetitive cases against many countries and For example Viaşu v. Romania (09.12.2008), Katz v.
imposing an obligation on States to address those Romania (20.01. 2009) and Faimblat v. Romania
problems. (13.04.2009)

- 13 -
Press country profile – Romania

decided that the adjournment of its Merschdorf v. Romania


examination of all applications stemming 21.05.2013
from the same general problem would The case concerned the refusal of the
remain in force until the adoption of one or Romanian authorities to allow foreign
several lead decisions on the action taken citizens to recover the property rights of
by the Government in response to the assets their parents owned in Romania,
Maria Atanasiu and Others pilot judgment. which assets were confiscated under the
communist regime.
Case examined by the Court following the Application declared inadmissible
pilot judgment procedure conducted in the (manifestly ill-founded)
case Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania
Dumitru and Others v. Romania
Preda and Others v. Romania 19.09.2012
29.04.2014 The case concerned the decision to pay
The case concerned administrative and/or allowances awarded by judicial decisions to
judicial proceedings for compensation or members of the civil service (judges) in
restitution in respect of property instalments.
confiscated or nationalised by the Application declared inadmissible (paying in
communist regime, in accordance with laws instalments of allowances was not
passed by Romania after the fall of the unreasonable)
regime in December 1989.
The Court held unanimously that the Ioviţoni and others v. Romania
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 07.05.2012
(protection of property) should be rejected Applicants charged a pollution tax
for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as subsequently held to be in breach of
regards seven of the applications. European Union law.
As regards application no. 3736/03, the Application declared inadmissible (the
Court held that there had been a violation applicants’ rights under the Convention
of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. were not violated)
The Court also concluded that, bearing in
Tripon v. Romania
mind the margin of appreciation enjoyed by
the Romanian State, the law enacted by the 06.03.2012
Romanian Parliament provided in principle Dismissal of a customs officer for extended
– except in situations where there were absence from work on account of his
multiple documents of title for the same pre-trial detention.
building – an accessible and effective Application declared inadmissible (no
framework of redress for alleged violations breach of the applicant’s human rights)
of the right to peaceful enjoyment of Mihăieş v. Romania and Senteş v.
possessions, and that it was up to the Romania
claimants concerned to make use of that 02.03.2012
framework. The applicants complained of 25% salary
cuts for a period of six months in
Noteworthy cases, decisions application of a law introducing measures
delivered to balance the State’s budget.
Applications declared inadmissible (no
breach of the applicants’ human rights)
Nastase v. Romania
18.11.2014 Zelca and Others v. Romania
The case concerned the conviction of Adrian 29.09.2011
Nastase, former Prime Minister and former Complaint by Romanian civil servants
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Romania, by concerning unpaid salary.
the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for Application declared inadmissible
using his influence as chairman of a political Press release in Romanian
party in order to obtain financing for his
2004 election campaign.
Application declared inadmissible
(manifestly ill-founded)

- 14 -
Press country profile – Romania

Farcaș v. Romania Relinquishment in favor of the Grand Chamber


30.09.2010 on 27 March 2018
Physically handicapped applicant who Grand Chamber hearing on 3 October 2018
complained that he could not access certain Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania
buildings and in particular, that civil cases (no. 41720/13)
he wished to bring before the courts could The case mainly concerns the alleged
not be examined as he could not access ineffectiveness and lack of promptness of a
court buildings. criminal investigation into a car accident, in
Application declared inadmissible (neither which the applicant suffered serious
the right of access to a court nor the right injuries.
of individual petition had been hindered by Relying in substance on Article 3 of the
insurmountable obstacles preventing the Convention Mr Tănase complains that he
applicant from bringing proceedings) was subjected to inhuman and degrading
treatment because the criminal
First application by the Court of the investigation opened by the domestic
new admissibility criterion introduced authorities into his car accident lacked
by Protocol No. 14 promptness and was ineffective. In
particular, he claims that the domestic
Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania authorities failed to examine the merits of
28.06.2010 the case and clarify the circumstances of
Since the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 the accident, allowing the special statute of
to the Convention on 1 June 2010, a new limitation in respect of the third party’s
admissibility criterion is applicable: an offence to take effect.
application is inadmissible where “the Relinquishment in favor of the Grand Chamber
applicant has not suffered a significant on 18 May 2017
disadvantage, unless respect for human Grand Chamber hearing on 15 November 2017
rights as defined in the Convention and the
Protocols thereto requires an examination
of the application on the merits and Chamber
provided that no case may be rejected on
this ground which has not been duly Brădățeanu and Others v. Romania
considered by a domestic tribunal”. (no. 27189/17)
In Mr Ionescu’s case the three conditions of
Case communicated to the Government on 15
the new inadmissibility test were satisfied: December 2017
the applicant had not suffered any The case concerns the applicants’ complaint
significant disadvantage (the alleged that the High Court of Cassation and Justice
financial loss was limited), respect for delivered two final conflicting decisions in
human rights did not require an litigations related to alleged unfair terms of
examination of the application on the credit agreements denominated in a foreign
merits (the relevant legal provisions had currency.
been repealed) and the case had been The applicants complain in particular on
“duly considered” on the merits by the Article 6 (right to a fair trial), alone and
Bucharest District Court. taken in conjunction with Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination) of the
Noteworthy pending cases Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(protection of property) to the Convention.
Grand Chamber Jidic v. Romania (no. 45776/16)
Mihalache v. Romania (no. 54012/10) Case communicated to the Government of
Romania on 27 April 2017
In this case, Mr Mihalache relies on Article 4
of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or The case concerns the length of the
punished twice) to the European criminal proceedings brought against
Convention and he complains of being Mr Jidic, the lack of an effective remedy for
convicted twice of the same offence. his complaint concerning the length of
proceedings and the alleged breach by the
last-instance court of the principle of

- 15 -
Press country profile – Romania

retrospective application of the more Case concerning conditions of


lenient criminal law by applying the old detention
criminal law provisions to his case.
Flămînzeanu (IV) v. Romania
The applicant relies on Article 6 (right to a
(no. 56443/11)
fair trial), Article 7 (no punishment without
Communicated to the Government in
law), and Article 13 (right to an effective
January 2012
remedy) of the Convention.

Press contact:
+33 (0) 3 90 21 42 08

- 16 -