WRITTEN QUESTION P-0705/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2002)

Subject: The independence of the Romanian judiciary with specific reference to Prince Carol Mircea's attempt to establish his legitimacy

For over ten years, one of my constituents, Prince Carol Mircea Grigore De Hohenzollern-De Romania has been involved in an extraordinary and unnecessarily protracted dispute with his younger half-brother ex-King Michael in the Romanian Courts over the former's legitimacy. The case also has a bearing on the ownership of substantial property holdings, including art works which have already been sold, despite their disputed ownership.

In 1999 the Romanian Court of Appeal formally recognised the earlier ruling of a Portuguese Court in 1955 (followed by a similar ruling in a French Court in 1957) affirming that Prince Carol Mircea (who lives in London,) is the legitimate first-born son from the legal marriage of Crown Prince Carol of Romania and Princess Ioana Valentina Lambrino, something which has also long been recognised by the Romanian Orthodox Church. The Supreme Court has been examining the matter for over two years. Other exequatur judgments in the Romanian courts based on judgments in countries using the Code Napoleon take no more than six months.

Over the years, the case has taken on an almost Alice in Wonderland quality, with substantial delays permitted on various grounds, including the need to obtain a death certificate for Magda Lupescu, the third wife of Carol 11, who had been dead for 25 years, ex-King Michael's insistence on having citations delivered to his Swiss residence, illness amongst several members of his legal team, and a six-month delay because there were insufficient funds available to pay them. Many people in Romania have concluded that the case is being strung-out until the ailing 82-year old Prince dies.

Last week, as the Supreme Court was about to reach a verdict, the state Prosecutor intervened on a spurious use of Article 85 of the Civil Code and demanded a new trial.

In its November, 2001 Regular Report on Romania, the Commission expresses its concern over the extension of the General Prosecutor's right to introduce extraordinary appeals against judicial decisions on the grounds that the extension of such extraordinary procedures risks undermining the principle of legal certainty. Does the Commission regard the state's willingness to interfere so blatantly even in such a high profile case as this as a matter of deep concern and a violation of the principles of civil justice, and will the Commission ask its mission in Bucharest to investigate and raise the matter with the Romanian government?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

In order to become a member of the Union, Romania like any other candidate country has to fulfil the accession criteria that have been established by the European Council at its meeting in Copenhagen in 1993. In particular, the so-called political criteria requires stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The developments in these areas are therefore taken into consideration by the Commission in its assessment of Romania's progress towards accession to the Union.

The Commission assists Romania and monitors its progress towards fulfilling the conditions for accession. Respect of the principle of legal certainty is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law. The Commission has closely followed the recent developments concerning the extension of the rights of the General Prosecutor to introduce extraordinary annulment actions. The Commission has expressed its concerns in the latest Regular Report and in direct dialogue with the Romanian authorities, that these extended rights risk undermining the principle of legal certainty.

The concerns of the Commission should be seen in view of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. This Court found in its judgement of 28 October 1999 in the case Brumarescu v. Romania(1), that the right the Romanian General Prosecutor had until the law was changed in 1997 to challenge final judgements without any time-limit, constituted a breach of the principle of legal certainty. The Court found also that this breach implied an infringement of the right to a fair court hearing which is guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A time-limit of six months was introduced in the Romanian legislation in 1997. The time-limit was extended through the latest amendments to one year, the power of the General Prosecutor to introduce extraordinary annulment actions became more discretionary and included also cases which were not finally decided in the normal procedure.

The Commission will continue to follow the developments in this field with special attention to how the discretionary power of the General Prosecutor is used. However, the Commission has no competence to intervene directly in the dispute the Honourable Member is referring to. Individual judicial redress for the alleged breach of the principle of legal certainty can only be sought within the Romanian judicial system and, when all domestic remedies have been exhausted, at the European Court of Human Rights. The Honourable Member has also suggested that the court proceedings in question have been unmotivated lengthy. If this is the case, it can in itself constitute a breach of human rights.

(1) No 28342/95 ECHR 1999-VII.