issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 135 (2013)
30.04.2013
Judgments concerning Romania
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two
Chamber judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments are available only in French.
Revision
Gardean and S.C. Grup 95 SA v. Romania (application
no. 25787/04)
The initial applicants, Adrian Gardean and the company S.C. Grup 95 SA, complained
about the setting aside of a final judgment following an appeal for judicial review lodged
by the Prosecutor General. In a judgment of 1 December 2009 the Court found a
violation of Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property), while
reserving the question of just satisfaction. In February 2010, when the parties
exchanged observations concerning Article 41 (just satisfaction), a new company
informed the Court that it intended to continue the proceedings on behalf of the
applicant company, with which it had signed a contract of sale shortly before it went into
compulsory liquidation in May 2009. Relying on Rule 80 of the Rules of Court (request
for revision of a judgment), the Romanian Government requested the revision of the
judgment of 1 December 2009, considering that the sale was a new fact which might by
its nature have a decisive influence on the outcome of the case.
In today’s judgment, the Court accepted the request for revision of the
judgement of 1 December 2009 and declared the application inadmissible.
Ion Ciobanu v. Romania (no. 67754/10)
The applicant is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and is currently detained in
Colibaşi prison (Romania). He served a prison sentence for robbery from January 2004
to June 2010, when he was released on licence. In October 2010 he was convicted of
insulting behaviour and sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his initial sentence.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ciobanu
complained in particular of poor conditions of detention.
Violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention)
Just satisfaction: EUR 4,800 euros (non-pecuniary damage)
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month
period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber
of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
