WRITTEN QUESTION P-0705/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The independence of the Romanian judiciary with specific reference to Prince Carol Mircea's attempt to establish his legitimacy.
Date: 2002-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Romania, accession criteria, appeal, associated action for damages, discretionary power, higher court, primacy of the law, right to justice

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/125

However, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions
on the Structural Funds (1) and Portuguese legislation,
in particular the Decree-Law 54-A 2000, the
national programming authorities are responsible for selecting projects. The Commission therefore invites
the Honourable Member to seek more information on possible joint financing from the following:
PRODEP III, Av. 24 de Julho 134-5o, 1399-029 Lisboa, and PORLVT, Rua de Artilharia Um No 33, 1269-
145 Lisboa.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 229 E/142)

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
to investigate and raise the matter with the Romanian
Commission ask its mission in Bucharest
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.

C 229 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

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.

(2002/C 229 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Losses during long-distance electricity transmission and distribution and financial instruments to

deter such losses

Is the Commission aware that

1.
transmission, which increase with increasing transmission distance,
transformers also produces losses and that consequently,
Netherlands, which import as much lower-cost electricity as possible from France and Germany,
5 billion kWh each year, or 5 % of total domestic energy consumption?

there are considerable losses during long-distance electricity
that any voltage conversion in
for example, energy distributors in the
lose

Does the Commission think it desirable to limit such transmission losses, with a view to optimising
impact of electricity generation and the available quantity of

2.
the balance between the environmental
electricity?

Does the Commission see scope for limiting electricity losses through better matching of power
the

3.
station locations and locations of energy-intensive businesses and by improving the quality of
electricity grid?

4.
Does the Commission see scope through electricity transmission pricing G at present, the same rate
applies to both short and long distances G to limit distance and thus deter the emergence of predictable
transmission losses?