003-4342975-5208035

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   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:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   2