Activity 4. Complete the sentences in the judge’s opinion given below, translating the phrases in brackets. After you’ve done it, check with the keys that follow the text

I (поділяю думку) of the members of the Court that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention (на двох окремих підставах) as well as a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1. I am also in substantial agreement (з міркуваннями) in the Court’s judgment in respect of the two Articles and (обмежусь лише деякими додатковими зауваженнями) on the first aspect of the Article 6 complaint.

The Court has found that the Supreme Court of Romania “(порушив принцип правової певності” and that, on the facts of the present case, “that action breached the applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. I do not regard this reasoning as altogether satisfactory, the Court in expressing this view having neither drawn on existing case-law nor fully explained the relationship between the two concepts of legal certainty and (справедливим судовим розглядом). It is possible to see the connection as one involving (принцип рівності сторін у провадженні у справі), which is a fundamental (вимога) of a fair trial. Just as the principle of equality of arms may be breached if, in proceedings involving the State, the legislature (втручається у здійснення правосуддя) in a way designed to influence the adjudication of the dispute, so it may be argued, equality of arms my be upset where, as here, in proceedings involving the State, power is conferred on the Рrocurator-General, as a State official, to apply at any time (скасувати рішення) in favour of the private individual which has become (остаточне і обов’язкове до виконання).

I prefer to view the issue not as involving a breach of the procedural requirements of fair trial as such but rather as an infringement of the “right to a court”, of which (право доступу до суду), that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil maters, constitutes one aspect.

The right of a litigant to a court would be illusory if a Contracting State’s legal system allowed a judicial decision which had become final and binding to be annulled by the Supreme Court of Justice on an application made by the Procurator-General without any limit of time. This is all the more so where, as here, the judgment of the Bucharest Court of First Instance had not only become final and enforceable but (було фактично виконано відповідними органами) which had ordered the house to be restored to the applicant, an order which had been complied with several months before the application for annulment was lodged.

While I agree that the principle of legal certainty is a principle of fundamental importance, where, as in the present case the breach of the principle (полягає) the grant of power to annul (без обмеження у часі) a final, binding and executed judgment, the breach is to be seen in my view as an infringement of the “right to a court” guaranteed by Article 6.

[the right of access, consists in, had actually been enforced by the relevant authorities, without a limit of time, share the view, fair trial, on two separate grounds, with the reasoning, interferes with the administration of justice, confine myself to a few supplementary remarks, the principle of equality of arms between parties to legal proceedings, infringed the principle of legal certainty, requirement, final and binding, to annul a judgment].

Activity 5. Suppose you were invited to participate in a workshop on the European Convention on Human Rights. Give a brief account of the Brumarescu case for the workshop participants and express your opinion in respect of the judgment of the Court. Focus on the importance of the principle of legal certainty.