AFFAIRE BUZOIANU c. ROUMANIE

• Judgment Date: 02 November 2021
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:1102JUD004459515
• Counsel: ȚIBULEAC O.M.
• Date: 02 November 2021
• Application Number: 44595/15
• Court: Fourth Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Rumania
• Applied Rules: 6;6-1

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF BUZOIANU v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 44595/15)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 November 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Buzoianu v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 44595/15) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Constantin Buzoianu (“the applicant”), on 1 September 2015;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

the decision to dismiss the Government’s objection to examination of the application by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, and Article 13 taken in conjunction with both those Articles, that his right of access to a court, his right to respect for his private life and his right to an effective remedy had been breached. He alleged in particular that his challenge against a parliamentary decision terminating his service as a member and president of a central public authority, which had had negative effects of a pecuniary and non-pecuniary nature for him, had not been examined on the merits by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

1. THE FACTS

2. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr O.M. Țibuleac, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms O. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. decision terminating the applicant’s service

5. On 27 September 2011 the joint chambers of Parliament appointed the applicant as a member and the President of the Council of the Insurance Supervisory Commission (Comisia de Supraveghere a Asigurărilor – “the CSA”) for a term of office of five years.

6. On 16 October 2012 the joint chambers of Parliament adopted a decision removing the applicant from the above-mentioned positions by relying on Article 4 § 9 of Law no. 32/2000 on insurance activities and their supervision. The decision followed a joint report by the budget, banking and finance commissions of Parliament’s chambers, identifying deficiencies in the monitoring and regulation by the CSA of the country’s insurance market.

2. preliminary administrative complaint

7. On 9 November 2012 the applicant lodged a preliminary administrative complaint with Parliament against the decision of 16 October 2012, seeking to have it revoked.

8. On 20 November 2012 Parliament rejected his complaint on the grounds that the impugned decision was not an administrative act and could not be challenged by means of a preliminary administrative complaint. It had been a Parliament-specific legal act of the kind set out in Article 67 of the Constitution and had been adopted in accordance with the powers conferred on Parliament by Law no. 32/2000, namely appointing and removing members of the CSA.

3. Stay of execution proceedings

9. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with an administrative court to stay the enforcement of the decision of 16 October 2012 pending the outcome of proceedings brought by him to challenge its validity. He argued that the decision had been unlawful and could permanently damage his honour and reputation, as well as the activities of the CSA.

10. By a judgment of 5 December 2012, which was amenable to appeal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant’s application as inadmissible. It held that enforcement could be stayed only for administrative acts, which the impugned decision was deemed not to be. When adopting the kind of acts set out in Article 67 of the Constitution, Parliament exercised its constitutional prerogative in representing the people and such acts could not be challenged before the administrative courts, regardless of their content.

11. There is no evidence in the case file that the applicant appealed against that judgment.

4. civil Court...