28/04/2015
Article in Romanian
"The judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights on 17 March 2015 in Case and Others v Ignãtescu Romania were resolved after joinder - according to art. 42 of the Rules of Court - more applications, considering that there was an infringement of art. 6 para. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. It also ordered that the Romanian state to ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of decisions being reviewed and no. 54593/11 / 18.08.2011 brought by SC ECOLOGICAL CENTER SA regarding the execution of the judgment of 12.08.2009 Constance Court, confirmed by the Decision. 63 / CA / 28.01.2010 of the Court of Appeal Constanta. Between the time of issue and date of the judgment judgment the Court held a series of judicial and administrative proceedings that obviously important in how the Court would process the application.
Thus, to implement the provisions of art. 38 of the Convention, taking into account the provisions of the Regulation, I consider it necessary to analyze the appropriateness of the request of the European Court of Human Rights to demand the case be referred to the Grand Chamber, being considered incidents and the provisions of the art. 80 of the Regulation that the European Court of an application for revision. Thus, note the following: -Curtea previously admitted similar applications, for example decided to revise the judgment on 1 December 2009 in Case Gardean and SC group 95 SA against Romania and by virtue of art. 47 para. 6 of the Rules, the complainant noted that the incumbent obligation to inform "about any circumstances relevant to her application." -SC ECOLOGICAL CENTER SA is a company to which on 06.16.2014 was ordered opening of insolvency proceedings by Constanta Court in Case no. 3080/118/2014. -Rezultatele referendum in the city of Nãvodari in accordance with Law no.3/2000 on the organization and conduct of the referendum, as amended and supplemented, Law no.215/2001 in compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Council and issued to this effect. -solving by final causes criminal courts or by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the file no. 12226/118/2011 on administrative acts - Roberto Vincentelli defendants, Tudorel Pads, Manuela Marinescu Stephanie and legal entity SC Ecological Center SA. (Condemning defendant SC ECOLOGICAL CENTER SA Navodari penalty imposed fines amounting to 7,000 lei, for the offense of forgery through repeated. - Http://portal.just.ro/36/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar= 11800000000085425 & id_inst = 36) The girl from Navodari city location, show that coastal strategy, the right to a healthy environment, tourism and economic activities, is in fact part of the strategies on economic, social and environmental administrative unit territorial being one which fall within the provisions of Law no. 215/2001. -Solicitarea is one that corresponds to the text recalled that the findings: The objectives Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters ( Aarhus Convention), ratified by the EU and transposed into its legislation include ensuring people's right to participate in decisions regarding environmental issues. Therefore, this participation takes effect, was not challenged and is one to be taken into account and to be further encouraged. Moreover, Article 9 (2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention provides for access to judicial or other procedures for challenging the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts or omissions involving the public. Therefore, we ask, Minister, to communicate if you know the items mentioned, to analyze the situation, to use your procedures are set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Rules of Court, to have regard to the interests concrete, clear, manifest in accordance with domestic and international legal framework of Nãvodari city residents in respect constitutional norms in conjunction with the other issues mentioned, it is investigated and written comments submitted to the European Court and not allow a situation requiring retention analysis and transmitting the application to the Court - together of the documents which can be obtained from the City Nãvodari - required request reconsideration of Case, Judgment is not final in the sense of Art. 44 para 2 of the ECHR ", says the deputy interpellation.
