Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr.

2/2011

ACCESULUI LIBER LA JUSTIIE

FREE ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Lect. univ. dr. Alin-Gheorghe GAVRILESCU

Catedra de Drept
Facultatea de tiine Juridice i Litere
Universitatea Constantin Brncui din TgJiu

University Lecturer PhD. Alin-Gheorghe

GAVRILESCU
Law Chair
Faculty of Juridical Sciences and Letters
Constantin Brncui University of Tg-Jiu

Abstract: Accesul liber la justiie constituie

un principiu de baz care guverneaz organizarea
unui sistem judiciar democratic i, totodat, un drept
cetenesc fundamental consacrat ntr-un numr
important de documente internaionale dar i n
dreptul romn. Dup o scurt introducere i
prezentare a principalelor reglementri n materie,
articolul analizeaz condiiile ce trebuie ndeplinite
pentru asigurarea accesului liber la justiie, coninutul
dreptului de acces la justiie, precum i limitele
acestui drept fiind puse n discuie aspecte ale
liberului acces la justiie conturate n practica Curii
Europene de Drepturilor Omului i a Curii
Constituionale a Romniei

Abstract: Free access to justice represents a

basic principle governing the organization of a
democratic judicial system and, at the same time, a
basic civic right consecrated in an important number
of international documents, but also in the Romanian
law. After a short introduction and presentation of the
main regulations in matter, the article analyses the
conditions that should be accomplished in order to
provide the free access to justice, the content of the
right to access to justice, and also the limits of this
right being discussed the aspects of the free access to
justice outlined in the practice of the European Court
of Human Rights and of the Romanian Constitutional
Court.

Cuvinte cheie: drept fundamental, accesul

liber la justiie, instan, lege, hotrre
judectoreasc, persoan.

Key words: basic right, free access to

justice, court, law, judicial decision, person.

1. Notion. Juridical Framework

1. Noiune. Cadrul juridic
Accesul la justiie este un drept
fundamental1, esenial, n lipsa cruia ar fi
iluzoriu s se vorbeasc de justiie bun i de
proces echitabil2 care const n facultatea
oricrei persoane de a introduce, dup libera
sa apreciere, o aciune n justiie, fie ea chiar
nefondat n fapt i n drept, implicnd
obligaia corelativ a statului ca, prin instana
competent, s se pronune asupra acestei
aciuni3.
Accesul liber la justiie ca, de altfel,
orice drept fundamental, are caracter legitim
numai n msura n care este exercitat cu
bun-credin, n limite rezonabile, cu
respectarea drepturilor i intereselor n egal
msur ocrotite ale celorlalte subiecte de
drept4.
Ca drept cetenesc fundamental,

The access to justice is a basic,

essential right49, without which it would be
illusive to speak of good justice and
equitable process50 consisting in the faculty
of any person to introduce, according to his
or her free appreciation, an action in justice,
even if it is not ungrounded in fact and in
law, involving the correlative obligation of
the state so that, by means of the competent
court, it could pronounce on this action51.
The free access to justice, as any
basic right, has a legal feature only as long
as it is exerted with good faith, in reasonable
limits, by respecting the protected rights and
interests of the other law subjects52.
As a basic civic right, the free access
to justice is consecrated both at the
international level and in the inside law.
In the international juridical order,

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

61

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

accesul liber la justiie este consacrat att la

nivel internaional ct i n dreptul intern.
n ordinea juridic internaional,
prevederi n aceast materie conin:
- art. 8 din Declaraia Universal a
Drepturilor Omului care proclam c orice
persoan are dreptul s se adreseze, n mod
efectiv, instanelor judiciare competente
mpotriva actelor care violeaz drepturile
fundamentale care i sunt recunoscute de
Constituie sau de lege;
- art. 2 pct. 3 lit. a din Pactul
internaional cu privire la drepturile civile i
politice care stabilete c statele pri la acest
pact se angajeaz s garanteze c orice
persoan ale crei drepturi sau liberti
recunoscute n acest pact au fost violate va
dispune de o cale de recurs efectiv, chiar
atunci cnd nclcarea a fost comis de
persoane acionnd n exerciiul funciilor lor
oficiale;
art. 13 din Convenia european
pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i a
libertilor fundamentale care arat c orice
persoan ale crei drepturi i liberti
recunoscute de Convenie au fost nclcate,
are dreptul la un recurs efectiv n faa unei
instane naionale, chiar i atunci cnd
nclcarea s-ar datora unor persoane care au
acionat n exercitarea atribuiilor lor oficiale.
Acest articol trebuie interpretat ca garantnd
o aciune efectiv n faa unei instane
naionale oricrei persoane care pretinde o
nclcare a drepturilor i libertilor sale
protejate de Convenie, n scopul pronunrii
unei hotrri cu privire la capetele sale de
cerere i, dac este cazul, n scopul obinerii
de reparaii5.
- art. 47 alin. 1 din Carta drepturilor
fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene6 care
recunoate oricrei persoane ale crei
drepturi i liberti garantate de dreptul
Uniunii sunt nclcate, dreptul la o cale de
atac eficient n faa unei instane
judectoreti.
Fr a fi consacrat n termeni exprei,
dreptul de a avea acces la justiie este
recunoscut, implicit, oricrei persoane de art.

the stipulations in this matter contain:

- art. 8 of the Universal Declaration
of the Human Rights proclaiming that any
person has the right to actually address to the
competent judicial courts against the acts
violating the basic rights acknowledged by
the Constitution or by the law;
- art. 2 point 3, letter a of the
International Pact regarding the civil and
political rights establishing that the states
parties of these pact are committed to
guarantee that any person whose rights or
freedoms acknowledged in this pact have
been violated will have an effective appeal
way even when the disrespect was
accomplished by persons acting in the
exertion of their official functions;
art. 13 of the European Convention
for protecting the basic human rights and
freedoms showing that any person whose
rights and freedoms acknowledged by the
Convention have been contravened, has the
right to an effective appeal in front of a
national court, even when the contravention
is due to some persons acting in the exertion
of their official attributions. This article
should be interpreted as guaranteeing an
effective action in front of a national court to
any person pretending a contravention of his
or her rights and freedoms protected by the
Convention, in order to pronounce a decision
regarding its demanding heads and, if
necessary, in order to obtain reparations53.
- art. 47, paragraph 1 of the Charter
of the basic rights of the European Union54
acknowledging to any person whose rights
and freedoms guaranteed by the Union law
are contravened, the right to an efficient way
of attack in front of a judicial court.
Without being consecrated in express
terms, the right to have access to justice is
acknowledged, implicitly, to any person by
art. 6, point 1 of the European Convention
for protecting the basic human rights and
freedoms, when it shows that any person has
the right to have his or her cause examined
equitably, publically and in a reasonable
term by an independent and impartial court,

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

62

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

6 pct. 1 din Convenia european pentru

aprarea drepturilor omului i a libertilor
fundamentale, atunci cnd arat c orice
persoan are dreptul s-i fie examinat cauza
n mod echitabil, public i ntr-un termen
rezonabil de ctre un tribunal independent i
imparial, stabilit prin lege. n acest sens s-a
pronunat i instana european artnd c ar
fi de neconceput ca art. 6 pct. 1 din
Convenie s descrie n detaliu garaniile
procedurale acordate prilor unei aciuni
civile n curs, fr a proteja mai nti ceea ce
singur face n realitate posibil exercitarea
unei astfel de garanii: accesul la instana
judectoreasc. Echitatea, publicitatea i
celeritatea unui proces nu au nicio
semnificaie n absena procesului7.
Dat fiind faptul c exercitarea
dreptului de acces la justiie reprezint o
condiie sine qua non a realizrii efective a
drepturilor i libertilor persoanei, principiul
accesului liber la justiie are n dreptul nostru
o valoare constituional prin consacrarea i
garantarea n legea fundamental a dreptului
persoanei de a se adresa justiiei. Astfel, dup
ce alin. 1 al art. 21 din Constituie recunoate
oricrei persoane dreptul de a se adresa
justiiei pentru aprarea drepturilor, a
libertilor i a intereselor sale legitime,
aliniatul 2 al aceluiai articol stabilete c
exerciiul acestui drept nu poate fi ngrdit
prin nicio lege. Aadar, nicio lege nu poate
interzice celor interesai s se adreseze
justiiei pentru c, n sistemul ordinii
constituionale actual, justiia este garantul
drepturilor i libertilor cetenilor iar art. 21
din Constituie valorific tocmai aceast
funcie a justiiei8
Prevederi asemntoare celor din
Constituie conine art. 6 din Legea nr.
304/2004 privind organizarea judiciar,
republicat, cu modificrile i completrile
ulterioare, n temeiul cruia orice persoan se
poate adresa justiiei pentru aprarea
drepturilor a libertilor i a intereselor sale
legitime n exercitarea dreptului su la un
proces echitabil. Accesul la justiie nu poate
fi ngrdit.

established by the law. In this sense, it was

also pronounced the European court,
showing that it is inconceivable for art. 6,
point 1 of the Convention to describe in
detail the procedural guarantees granted to a
developing civil action, without protecting
first what makes possible, by itself, in reality
the exertion of such a guarantee: the access
to the judicial court. The equity, the
advertising and the celerity of a process have
no meaning in the absence of the process55.
Given the fact that the exertion of the
right to access to justice represents a sine
qua non condition of the effective
accomplishment of the persons rights and
freedoms, the principle of the free access to
justice has in our law a constitutional value
by consecrating and guaranteeing the
persons right to address justice in the basic
law. Thus, after paragraph 1 of art. 21 of the
Constitution acknowledges to any person to
right to address to justice in order to protect
his or her legal rights, freedoms and
interests, paragraph 2 of the same article
establishes that the exertion of this right can
be limited by no law. Thus, no law may
forbid the interested ones to address to
justice because, in the current system of the
constitutional order, justice is the guarantor
of the civic rights and freedoms and art. 21
of the Constitution capitalizes this function
of the justice56
Stipulations similar to the ones in
Constitution are contained by art. 6 of Law
no. 304/2004 on judicial organization,
republished, with subsequent amendments
and additions based on which any person
may address to justice in order to protect his
or her legal rights, freedoms and interests in
exerting his or her right to an equitable
process. The access to justice cannot be
bordered.
The legal interests collocation,
which both the stipulations of the basic law
and the ones of the judicial organization law
refer to, does not impose a condition of
admitting the action in justice, because the
legal or illegal feature of the requirements

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

63

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

Sintagma interese legitime la care

fac
referire
att
dispoziiile
legii
fundamentale ct i ale legii de organizare
judectoreasc nu impune o condiie de
admisibilitate a aciunii n justiie, cci
caracterul legitim sau nelegitim al preteniilor
formulate n aciunea n justiie rezult numai
n urma judecrii pricinii respective i va fi
constatat prin hotrrea judectoreasc9
Posibilitatea de a avea acces la justiie
rezult, de asemenea, din dispoziiile legii
fundamentale care reglementeaz expres
dreptul de a sesiza instana de judecat n
litigiile cu caracter administrativ. n acest
sens, art. 52 alin. 1 din Constituie dispune c
persoana vtmata ntr-un drept al su ori ntrun interes legitim, de o autoritate public,
printr-un act administrativ sau prin
nesoluionarea n termenul legal a unei cereri,
este ndreptit s obin recunoaterea
dreptului pretins sau a interesului legitim,
anularea actului i repararea pagubei.
Principiul accesului liber la justiie
este reflectat i de prevederile art. 30 din
Legea nr. 189/2003 privind asistena judiciar
internaional n materie civil i comercial
conform crora persoanele fizice sau juridice
strine au dreptul s se adreseze liber i
nestnjenit autoritilor judiciare romne, s
formuleze cereri, s introduc aciuni i s-i
susin interesele n aceleai condiii ca i
persoanele fizice sau juridice romne.

formulated in the action in justice result only

after judging the respective cause and it will
be found by judicial decision57.
The possibility to have access to
justice also results from the stipulations of
the basic law regulating expressly the right
to announce the judicial court in the
administrative litigations. In this sense, art.
52, paragraph 1 of the Constitution says that
the person damaged in one of his or her
rights or in any legal interest by a public
authority, by an administrative act or by nonsolving a demand in a legal term, has the
right to obtain the acknowledgement of the
pretended right or of the legal interest, the
annulment of the act and the reparation of
the damage.
The principle of the free access to
justice is also reflected by art. 30 of Law no.
189/2003 regarding the international judicial
assistance in civil and commercial matter
according to which the foreign natural
persons or judicial entities have the right to
address freely and in an unhampered manner
to the Romanian judicial authorities, to
formulate demands, to introduce actions and
to support their interests in the same
conditions as the Romanian natural persons
or juridical entities.
2. Conditions that should be
accomplished in order to provide the free
access to justice

2. Condiii ce trebuie ndeplinite

pentru a asigura accesul liber la justiie

The free access to justice is provided

if the following conditions are accomplished:
Accesul liber la justiie este asigurat n
- There is a court;
cazul ndeplinirii urmtoarelor condiii:
- The court is instituted by law;
- s existe o instan;
- The court is competent to solve the
- instana s fie instituit prin lege;
cause;
- instana s fie competent s
- The access to justice is really,
soluioneze cauza;
actually provided;
- accesul la justiie s fie asigurat n
mod real, efectiv;
2.1. The existence of a court
In the judiciary activity, the judicial
court has the central place. This represents
2.1. Existena unei instane
n activitatea judiciar locul central l the organ belonging to the judicial
ocup instana de judecat. Aceasta reprezint authorities by means of which justice is
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

64

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

organul aparinnd autoritii judectoreti

prin intermediul cruia se nfptuiete
justiia10. Aadar, instana judectoreasc
acioneaz n calitate de autoritate statal
specializat n activitatea de distribuire a
justiiei11.
Instanele
judectoreti
pot
fi
organizate pe principiul unicitii justiiei
civile i a justiiei penale sau pe principiul
separaiei celor dou forme de realizare a
justiiei. n temeiul primului principiu aceleai
instane judectoreti judec i cauzele civile
i cauzele penale iar n temeiul celui de-al
doilea principiu funcioneaz instane
judectoreti care judec numai cauzele civile
i instane judectoreti care judec numai
cauzele penale12.
Dispoziiile art. 6 din Convenie
folosesc termenul de tribunal i nu noiunea de
instan de judecat. n sensul european al
termenului tribunalul este un organ judiciar de
plin jurisdicie13. Potrivit jurisprudenei
Curii Europene un tribunal sau o instan se
caracterizeaz prin rolul su jurisdicional:
acela de a trana, pe baza unor norme
judiciare i n cadrul unei proceduri
organizate, orice chestiune privind cauza ce ia fost adus spre rezolvare14. Acesta trebuie s
exercite un veritabil control de legalitate att
cu privire la chestiunile de drept ct i cu
privire la cele de fapt15.
2.2. Instituirea instanei prin lege
Aceast condiie fundamental pe care
trebuie s o ndeplineasc o instan sesizat
cu soluionarea unui litigiu este expres
prevzut de art. 6 alin. 1 din Convenie.
Termenul instituit prin lege la care se refer
art. 6 alin. 1 din Convenie are drept scop
evitarea lsrii organizrii sistemului judiciar
la discreia executivului i asigurarea
reglementrii materiei printr-o lege adoptat
de Parlament16.
n dreptul romn art. 126 alin. 1 din
Legea fundamental arat c justiia se
realizeaz prin nalta Curte de Casaie i
Justiie, precum i prin celelalte instane
judectoreti stabilite de lege. De asemenea,

accomplished58. So, the judicial court acts as

a state authority specialized in the activity of
distributing the justice59.
The judicial courts may be organized
on the principle of the uniqueness of the civil
justice and of the criminal justice or on the
principle of separation of the two types of
accomplishing the justice. Based on the first
principle, the same judicial courts also judge
the civil and criminal causes and, based on
the second principle, there are the judicial
courts judging only the civil causes and the
judicial courts judging only the criminal
causes60.
The stipulations of art. 6 of the
Convention use the court term, not the
judicial court notion. In the European sense
of term, the court is a judicial organ of full
jurisdiction61.
According
to
the
jurisprudence of the European Court, a court
is featured by its jurisdictional role: the one
to solve, based on certain judicial norms and
in frame of an organized procedure, any
problem regarding the cause that was
brought to be solved62. This should exert a
real control of legacy both regarding the law
problems and regarding the ones of fact63.
2.2. Instituting the court by law
This basic condition that should be
accomplished by a court noticed by solving
litigation is expressly stipulated by art. 6,
paragraph 1 of the Convention. The term of
instituted by law which art. 6, paragraph 1
of the Convention refers to, has as a purpose
the avoidance of letting the organization of
the judicial system at the discretion of the
executive and providing the regulation of the
matter by a law adopted by the Parliament64.
In the Romanian law, art. 126,
paragraph 1 of the Basic Law shows that
justice is accomplished by the High Court of
Cassation and Justice, and also by the other
judicial courts established by the law. Also,
the stipulations of paragraph 5 of the same
article regulate the possibility to settle
specialized courts in certain matters, by
organic law, having the possibility to

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

65

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

dispoziiile alineatului 5 al aceluiai articol

reglementeaz posibilitatea ca, prin lege
organic, s fie nfiinate instane specializate,
n anumite materii, cu posibilitatea
participrii, dup caz, a unor persoane din
afara magistraturii, stabilind, totodat, c este
interzis nfiinarea de instane extraordinare.
Legea la care fac referire dispoziiile
constituionale este Legea nr. 304/2004
privind organizarea judiciar, republicat, cu
modificrile i completrile ulterioare.
Articolul 1 din aceast lege prevede c puterea
judectoreasc se exercit de nalta Curte de
Casaie i Justiie i de celelalte instane
judectoreti stabilite de lege iar art. 2 alin. 2
din aceeai lege arat instanele judectoreti
prin care se realizeaz justiia respectiv: nalta
Curte de Casaie i Justiie, curile de apel,
tribunalele, tribunalele specializate, instanele
militare i judectoriile. Potrivit art. 56 alin. 1
din lege instanele militare sunt: tribunalele
militare, Tribunalul Militar Teritorial
Bucureti, Curtea Militar de Apel.
2.2. Instana s fie competent s
soluioneze cauza
Pentru ca dreptul de acces la o
instan s fie respectat trebuie ca instana n
faa creia este adus un litigiu, fie n materie
civil, fie n materie penal, s se bucure de
jurisdicie deplin17, s fie competent s
analizeze att aspectele de fapt ct i pe cele
de drept ale cauzei18.
2. 4. Accesul la justiie s fie asigurat
n mod real, efectiv
Orice ngrdire nejustificat a
dreptului de acces la justiie golete de
coninut, face irealizabil dreptul persoanei la
un proces echitabil i la soluionarea cauzelor
ntr-un termen rezonabil, motiv pentru care
dreptul ceteanului de a avea acces la justiie
trebuie asigurat n mod efectiv, aa cum
prevede art. 8 din Declaraia Universal a
Drepturilor Omului.
n jurisprudena CEDO efectivitatea
dreptului de acces la o instan presupune c
un individ se bucur de o posibilitate clar i

participate, depending on the case, for

certain persons outside the magistracy,
establishing at the same time that it is
forbidden the settlement of extraordinary
courts. The law which the constitutional
stipulations refer to is Law no. 304/2004
regarding
the
judicial
organization,
republished, with the subsequent changes
and completions. Article 1 of this law
stipulates that the judicial power is exerted
by the High Court of Cassation and Justice
and by the other judicial courts established
by the law and art. 2, paragraph 2 of the
same law shows the judicial courts by means
of which justice is accomplished,
respectively: the High Court of Cassation
and Justice, the appeal courts, the courts, the
specialized courts, the military courts and
the judicial courts. According to art. 56,
paragraph 1 of the law, the military instances
are: military courts, the Territorial Military
Court of Bucharest, the Military Appeal.
2.3. The instance should be
competent to solve the cause
For the right to access to a court to be
respected, the instance where a litigation is
brought, either in civil matter, or in criminal
matter, should enjoy full jurisdiction65, it
should be competent to analyse both the
aspects of facts and the ones of law of the
cause66.
2. 4. The access to justice should be
really, actually provided
Any unjustified limitation of the right
to access to justice depletes the content,
makes impracticable the persons right to an
equitable process and to solving the causes
in a reasonable term, this is why the citizens
right to have access to justice should be
actually provided, as it is stipulated by art. 8
of the Universal Declaration of the Human
Rights.
In the ECHU jurisprudence, the
effectiveness of the right to access to court
supposes that an individual enjoys a clear an
concrete possibility of contesting an act

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

66

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

concret de a contesta un act care constituie o

ingerin n drepturile sale19. Aadar, accesul
efectiv la justiie implic obligaia pozitiv a
statelor de a asigura n mod real posibilitatea
oricrei persoane de a-i susine cauza n faa
unui judector20.

constituting an interference in his or her

rights67. Thus, the effective access to justice
involves the positive obligation of the states
to really provide to every person the
possibility to support his or her cause in
front of a judge68.

3. Coninutul dreptului de acces la

justiie

3. The content of the right to access

to justice

ntr-o formulare general, art. 21 din

Constituia Romniei permite oricrei
persoane accesul la justiie pentru aprarea
oricrui drept sau liberti i a oricrui interes
legitim. n sensul principiului constituional
instituit de art. 21 din Legea fundamental
privind accesul liber la justiie se nscrie
posibilitatea oricrei persoane de a se adresa
direct i nemijlocit instanelor de judecat
pentru aprarea drepturilor, a libertilor i a
intereselor sale legitime. Pornind de la
aceast realitate, Curtea Constituional a
Romniei a constatat c dispoziiile art. 32
alin. 1 din Ordonana Guvernului nr. 2/2001
privind regimul juridic al contraveniilor care
arat c plngerea nsoit de copia de pe
procesul verbal de constatare a contraveniei
se depune la organul din care face parte
agentul constatator, acesta fiind obligat s o
primeasc i s nmneze depuntorului o
dovad n acest sens contravin prevederilor
art. 21 din Constituie ntruct ngrdesc
accesul direct la justiie atta timp ct nu
prevd ca alternativ i posibilitatea ca
plngerea s poat fi depus i la instana de
judecat21. Accesul liber la justiie nu
exclude ns existena unor proceduri
administrative prealabile dac organele
jurisdicionale administrative fie ndeplinesc
ele nsele cerinele art. 6 parag. 1 din
Constituie, fie acestea suport controlul
ulterior al unui organ judiciar cu jurisdicie
deplin, dac nu se conformeaz acestor
n
acest
sens
Curtea
exigene22.
Constituional a Romniei a decis c
instituirea unei proceduri administrativjurisdicionale nu este contrar principiului
prevzut de art. 21 din Constituie privind

In a general wording, art. 21 of the

Romanian Constitution allows to every person
the access to justice for protecting any right or
freedom and any legal interest. In the sense of
the constitutional principle instituted by art. 21
of the Basic Law regarding the free access to
justice, there is registered the possibility of
every person to address directly to the judicial
instances for protecting his or her legal rights,
freedoms and interests. Starting from this
reality, the Romanian Constitutional Court
found that the stipulations of art. 32, paragraph
1 of the Governmental Ordinance no. 2/2001
regarding the juridical system of the
contraventions showing that the complaint
accompanied by the copy on the record of
finding the contravention should be laid at the
organ containing the finding agent, being
forced to receive it and to hand to the one who
lays it a an evidence in this sense, contravene
to the stipulations of art. 21 of the Constitution
whereas they limit the direct access to justice
as long as they do not stipulate as an
alternative the possibility for the complaint to
be laid also at the judicial instance69. But the
free access to justice does not exclude the
existence of some prior administrative
procedures if the administrative jurisdictional
organs either accomplish by themselves the
provisions of art. 6, paragraph 1 of the
Constitution, or they suffer the prior control of
a judicial organ with full jurisdiction, if they
do not achieve these exigencies70. In this
sense, the Romanian Constitutional Court
decided that the institution of an
administrative-jurisdictional procedure is not
against the principle stipulated by art. 21 of the
Constitution regarding the free access to

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

67

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

liberul acces la justiie, ct timp decizia

organului administrativ de jurisdicie poate fi
atacat n faa unei instane judectoreti.
Plenul Curii Constituionale a considerat c
este de competena exclusiv a legiuitorului
de a institui asemenea proceduri destinate, n
general, s asigure soluionarea mai rapid a
unor categorii de litigii, decongestionarea
instanelor judectoreti de cauzele ce pot fi
rezolvate pe aceast cale, evitarea
cheltuielilor de judecat. Astfel, procedura
administrativ-jurisdicional constituie o
msur de protecie care, nu poate avea ca
scop, n nici un mod, limitarea accesului la
justiie. Existena unor organe administrative
de jurisdicie nu poate s duc la nlturarea
interveniei instanelor judectoreti, n
condiiile stabilite de lege. Aceast
consecin rezult i din exigenele
principiului separaiei puterilor n stat care, n
ceea ce privete relaia dintre administraia
public i autoritatea judectoreasc, exclude
posibilitatea ca un organ al administraiei
publice, chiar cu caracter jurisdicional, s se
substituie autoritii judectoreti. Ca urmare,
hotrrea
organului
de
jurisdicie
administrativ este supus controlului
judectoresc, al instanei de contencios
administrativ sau al altei instane competente
potrivit legii, iar prilor nu li se poate limita
exercitarea acestui drept consfinit de
prevederile Constituiei23
Accesul efectiv la o instan implic,
mai ales n cazul persoanelor lipsite de
libertate, dreptul de a lua legtura i de a
comunica n mod confidenial cu un avocat n
vederea pregtirii unei aciuni n justiie24,
precum i dreptul de a avea acces la toate
dovezile strnse de procuror25.
Accesul la justiie presupune, de
asemenea, posibilitatea concret a uza de
toate mijloacele procesuale pentru aprarea
unui drept sau unui interes legitim, inclusiv
mpotriva unei condamnri posibil incorecte.
n acest sens sunt i prevederile art. 2 parag.
1 din Protocolul nr. 7 adiional la Convenia
pentru aprarea drepturilor omului i a
libertilor fundamentale care stabilesc c

justice as long as the decision of the

administrative organ of jurisdiction may be
attacked in front of a judicial court. The
Plenum of the Constitutional Court considered
that it is for the exclusive competence of the
legislator to institute such procedures generally
meant to provide the quicker solving of certain
litigation categories, the relief of the judicial
instances from the causes that may be solved
on this way, avoiding the judicial
expenditures. Thus, the administrativejurisdictional
procedure
constitutes
a
protecting measure whose purpose can never
be the limiting of the access to justice. The
existence of certain administrative organs of
jurisdiction cannot lead to the removal of the
interference of the judicial instances, in the
conditions established by the law. This
consequence results also from the exigencies
of the principle of powers separation inside
the state that, regarding the relation between
the public administration and the judicial
authority, excludes the possibility for an organ
of the public administration, even a
jurisdictional one, to substitute to the judicial
authority. As a consequence, the decision of
the administrative jurisdiction organ is
submitted to the judicial control, of the
administrative contentious instance or of
another competent instance according to the
law, and the parties cannot have limited the
exertion of this right consented by the
stipulations of the Constitution71.
The effective access to an instance
involves, especially for the persons lacked of
freedom, the right to be connected and to
communicate confidentially with a lawyer in
order to prepare an action in justice, and also
the right to have access to all evidences
collected by the prosecutor72.
The access to justice also supposes the
concrete possibility to use all the processual
means for protecting a legal right or interest,
inclusive against a possibly incorrect
condemnation. In this sense, there are also the
stipulations of art. 2, paragraph 1 of Protocol
no. 7 additional to the Convention for
protecting the basic human rights and

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

68

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

orice persoan declarat vinovat de o

infraciune de ctre un tribunal are dreptul s
cear examinarea declaraiei de vinovie
sau a condamnrii sale de ctre o jurisdicie
superioar. Privitor la acesast problem,
Curtea Constituional a Romniei26
a
considerat c dispoziiile art. 1 pct. 184 din
Legea nr. 356/2006, n ceea ce privete
partea referitoare la moificarea dispoziiilor
art. 3859 alin. 1 pct. 12 C. pr. pen. contravin
dispoziiilor constituionale ale art. 21,
precum i prevederilor art. 20 raportate la art.
12 din Convenia pentru aprarea drepturilor
omului i a libertilor fundamentale, prin
eliminarea posibilitii de a contesta pe calea
recursului o hotrre judectoreasc atunci
cnd nu sunt ntrunite elementele constitutive
ale infraciunii27
Curtea a considerat c reprezint o
nclcare a dreptului de acces la justiie
suspendarea prin lege, pe termen nelimitat, a
judecrii unor litigii contra statului28, faptul
c instana nu s-a pronunat asupra unui
capt de cerere29, ori nu a soluionat fondul
cauzei aciunii reclamantului30.
Accesul la justiie nu semnific numai
posibilitatea juridic efectiv de sesizare a
unui organ de plin jurisdicie, organizat prin
lege pentru soluionarea cauzei ci i dreptul
de a obine o decizie a tribunalului31, precum
i dreptul de a cere executarea hotrrii
obinute32. Libertatea accesului la justiie este
apreciat numai n raport de hotrrile
judectoreti definitive pronunate de
jurisdicia competent care fac parte
integrant din noiunea de proces n sensul
art. 6 din Convenie33. Aa cum a decis
instana european dreptul la un tribunal ar fi
iluzoriu dac ordinea juridic intern a unui
stat contractant ar permite ca o decizie
judiciar definitiv i obligatorie s rmn
inoperant pentru partea n favoarea creia a
fost pronunat. De asemenea, s-a apreciat c,
neexecutarea unei hotrri judectoreti,
imputabil statului34, poate, n mod indirect,
s duc la lsarea fr coninut a acestui
drept35.

freedoms establishing that any person declared

guilty for a crime by a court has the right to
demand the examination of the guilt
declaration or of his or her condemnation by a
higher jurisdiction. Regarding this problem,
the
Romanian
Constitutional
Court73
considered that the stipulations of art. 1, point
184 of Law no. 356/2006, regarding the part
referring to the change of the stipulations of
art. 3859, paragraph 1, point 12 of Criminal
Processual Code, contravene to the
constitutional stipulations of art. 21, and also
the stipulations of art. 20 reported to art. 12 of
the Convention for protecting the Basic
Human Rights and Freedoms, by removing the
possibility to contest by appeal a judicial
decision when there are not combined the
constitutive elements of the crime74.
The court considered that it represents
a contravention of the right to access to justice
the suspension by law, on an unlimited term,
of judging certain litigations against the state75,
the fact that the court did not pronounce on a
demanding head76, or did not solve the fond of
the cause of the plaintiffs action77.
The access to justice does not mean
only the effective juridical possibility to
announce an organ of full jurisdiction
organized by law for solving the cause, but
also the right to obtain a decision of the
court78, and also the right to demand the
execution of the obtained decision79. The
freedom of the access to justice is appreciated
only in report to the definitive judicial
decisions pronounced by the competent
jurisdiction that are a part of the process notion
in the sense of art. 6 of the Convention80. As it
was decided by the European instance, the
right to a court would be illusive if the inside
juridical order of a contracting state allowed
for a definitive and compulsory judicial
decision to stay inoperative for the part in
whose favour it was pronounced. Also, it was
appreciated that the non-execution of a judicial
decision imputable to the state81, may lead
indirectly to the letting with no content of this
right82.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

69

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

4. Limitele dreptului de acces la

4. Limits of the right to access to

justiie

justice

Dreptul de a avea acces efectiv la o

instan nu este un drept absolut, el
cunoscnd anumite limitri. Privitor la
caracterul non absolut al dreptului de acces la
justiie Curtea European a artat c
limitrile nu trebuie s restrng accesul la
justiie de o manier sau pn la un punct n
care acest drept este atins n chiar substana
sa; asemenea limitri nu se conciliaz cu
dispoziiile art. 6 parag. 1 din Convenie
dect dac urmresc un scop legitim i exist
un raport rezonabil de proporionalitate ntre
mijloacele folosite i scopul urmrit36.
Aadar, restricionarea accesului la
justiie nu este incompatibil cu dispoziiile
art. 6 parag. 1 din Convenie dac sunt
ndeplinite cumulativ urmtoarele condiii:
- limitarea s nu ating substana
dreptului;
- limitarea s urmreasc un scop
legitim;
s
existe un raport de
proporionalitate ntre mijloacele folosite i
scopul urmrit.
O prim limitare decurge din faptul c
instana competent este stabilit prin lege
astfel c acest drept nu poate fi exercitat
nelimitat n privina alegerii instanei care s
analizeze cauza37.
O alt categorie de limitri o
reprezint obinerea autorizri prealabile
pentru sesizarea unei instane n cazul
persoanelor alienate mintal38 sau al
minorilor39.
Alte limitri ale dreptului de acces la
justiie rezult din condiiile procedurale de
exercitare a aciunii n justiie cum ar fi
termenele pentru efectuarea diferitelor acte
de procedur, termenele de prescripie, de
decdere40. Privitor la termenele de
prescripie Curtea Constituional a Romniei
a artat c instituia prescripiei n general, i
termenele n raport cu care i produce
efectele aceasta nu pot fi considerate ca
ngrdiri ale accesului liber la justiie,

The right to have effective access to

a court is not an absolute right, as it has
certain limits. Regarding the non-absolute
feature of the right to access to justice, the
European Court has shown that the
limitations should not restraint the access to
justice of a manner or until a point where
this right is reached even in its substance;
such limitations are not conciliated with the
stipulations of art. 6 paragraph 1 of the
Convention unless they follow a legal
purpose and there is a reasonable report of
proportionality between the used means and
the followed purpose83.
Thus, the restraint of the access to
justice is not incompatible with the
stipulations of art. 6, paragraph 1 of the
Convention if the following conditions are
cumulatively accomplished:
- its limitation should not reach the
substance of the right;
- its limitation should follow a legal
purpose;
- there should be a proportionality
report between the used means and the
followed purpose.
A first limitation comes from the fact
that the competent instance is established by
law so this right cannot be exerted for an
unlimited term regarding the choice of the
instance that should analyse the cause84.
Another category of limitations is
represented by obtaining prior authorizations
for announcing an instance in case of the
insane persons85 or of minors86.
Other limitations of the right to
access to justice comes from the procedural
conditions of exerting the action in justice
such as the terms for accomplishing different
procedural acts, prescription terms, decline
terms87. Regarding the prescription terms,
the Romanian Constitutional Court has
shown that the prescription institution in
general and the terms reported to which it
produces its effects, cannot be considered as

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

70

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

finalitatea lor fiind, dimpotriv de a-l facilita,

prin asigurarea unui climat de ordine,
indispensabil exercitrii n condiii optime a
acestui drept constituional41. De asemenea,
Curtea Constituional s-a pronunat n sensul
c termenul de prescripie asigur stabilitatea
i certitudinea necesare n raporturile
juridice, mobilizarea titularilor de drepturi
pentru realizarea lor ntr-un timp mai scurt,
cu posibiliti mai mari de probare a
drepturilor subiective, precum i cu
consecine pozitive pentru asigurarea unei
mai bune administrri a justiiei42
Stabilirea unor termene pentru
exercitarea cilor de atac este considerat n
practica instanei europene o limitare
admisibil a dreptului de acces la justiie cu
condiia ca un astfel de termen s nu conduc
o persoan diligent la imposibilitatea de a
exercita calea de atac43. Pe aceeai poziie se
situeaz i Curtea Constituional a Romniei
care a decis c libertatea accesului la justiie
este asigurat prin adoptarea de ctre
legiuitor a unor reguli de procedur clare, n
care s se prescrie cu precizie condiiile i
termenele n care justiiabilii i pot exercita
drepturile lor procesuale, inclusiv cele
referitoare la cile de atac mpotriva
hotrrilor pronunate de instanele de
judecat44
Accesul liber la justiie nu poate fi
considerat ca fiind ngrdit prin stabilirea
unor taxe de timbru. n acest sens, Curtea
Constituional a Romniei a statuat c
justiia este un serviciu public al statului, iar
costurile sale se suport de la bugetul de stat,
la ale crui venituri trebuie s contribuie toi
cetenii45, astfel c este normal ca justiiabili
care trag un folos nemijlocit din activitatea
desfurat de instanele judectoreti s
contribuie
la
acoperirea
cheltuielilor
46
acestora . Contribuia justiiabilului, prin
achitarea taxelor judiciare de timbru, la
cheltuielile pe care le implic serviciul public
al justiiei poate fi recuperat de acesta de la
partea care cade n pretenii, nglobndu-se n
cheltuielile de judecat pe care aceasta poate
fi obligat s le suporte. Totui, n doctrin s-

limitations of the free access to justice, their

ending being, on the contrary, to ease it, by
providing an order climate indispensable to
the exertion in optimal conditions of this
constitutional
right88.
Also,
the
Constitutional Court pronounced in the sense
where the prescription term provides the
stability and the certitude necessary in the
juridical reports, the mobilization of the right
holders for accomplishing them in a term as
short as possible, with big possibilities of
proving the subjective rights, and also
having positive consequences for providing
a better administration of justice89
The establishment of certain terms
for exerting the attacking ways is considered
in the practice of the European instance an
admissible limitation of the right to access to
justice if such a term does not lead a diligent
person to the impossibility to exert the way
of attack90. On the same position, there is the
Romanian Constitutional Court that decided
that the freedom of the access to justice is
provided by the legislators adoption of
certain clear procedure rules where there are
exactly prescribed the conditions and the
terms where the lawyers can exert their
processual rights, inclusively the ones
referring to the ways of attack against the
decisions pronounced in the judicial
instances91.
The free access to justice cannot be
considered as limited by establishing some
stamp taxes. In this sense, the Romanian
Constitutional Court decided that justice is
not a public service of the state and its costs
are suffered by the state budget whose
incomes all citizens should contribute to92,
so that it is normal for the lawyers having a
direct advantage from the activity developed
by the judicial instances to contribute to the
covering of their expenditures93. The
contribution of the lawyers, by paying the
judicial stamp taxes, to the expenditures
involved by the public service of justice may
be recovered by it from the part falling in
demands, being absorbed in the judicial
expenditures that it may be forced to suffer.

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

71

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

a artat, pe bun dreptate, c o tax judiciar

de timbru n cuantum ridicat poate reprezenta
o descurajare n fapt a liberului acces la
justiie47. Privitor la aceast problem s-a
pronunat, la nivel european, Comitetul
Minitrilor Consiliului Europei care,
considernd c dreptul de acces la justiie
reprezint o caracteristic esenial a oricrei
societi democratice, a artat, la punctele 11
i 12 ale Principiului D Costul justiiei din
Recomandarea nr. (81) 748 c introducerea
unei aciuni n instan nu poate fi
condiionat de plata efectuat ctre stat de
una din pri a unei sume nejustificat de mare
n raport cu spea dedus judecii i c, n
msura n care cheltuielile de procedur
constituie un obstacol evident pentru accesul
la justiie, ele trebuie reduse sau eliminate
dac este posibil.

However, in the doctrine it was correctly

shown that a judicial stamp tax in a high
quantum may represent a discouragement in
fact of the free access to justice94. Regarding
this problem, the Committee of the Ministers
of the European Council has pronounced, at
the European level, considering that the right
to access to justice represents an essential
feature of any democratic society and it has
shown at points 11 and 12 of the Principle D
Cost of Justice in Recommendation no.
(81) 795 that the introduction of an action in
instance cannot be conditioned by the
payment accomplished by the state to one of
the parties of an unduly big sum reported to
the respect deducted to the judgement and
that, as long as the procedural expenditures
constitute an obvious obstacle for the access
to justice, they should be reduced or
removed, if possible.

Bibliografie
Bibliography
T. Drganu, Consideraii critice cu
privire la caracterul absolut atribuit
dreptului la liber acces la justiie de legea de
revizuire a Constituiei din 21 noiembrie
2003 n Pandectele Romne nr. 4/2004
J.-Fr. Renucci, Tratat de drept
european al drepturilor omului, Editura
Hamangiu, Bucureti, 2009
Radu Chiri, Paradigmele accesului
la justiie. Ct de liber e accesul la justiie?
n Pandectele Romne nr. 1/2006
I. Muraru, Drept constituional i
instituii politice, Editura Actami, Bucureti,
1997
D. Rdescu, E. Rdescu, G. Stoican,
Dicionar de drept civil i proceduri civile,
Editura C. H. Beck, Bucureti, 2009
I. Le, Tratat de drept procesual civil,
Ediia a 4-a, Editura C. H. Beck, Bucureti,
2008
Gr. Theodoru, Tratat de drept
procesual penal, Ediia a 2-a, Editura
Hamanhiu, Bucureti, 2008
Christophe Lefort, Procedure civile,
Dalloz, Paris, 2005
C. Brsan, Convenia european a

T. Drganu, Critical Considerations

regarding the Absolute Feature Attributed to
the Right of Free Access to Justice by the
Reviewing Law of the Constitution from
November, 21st 2003 in the Romanian
Pandects no. 4/2004
J.-Fr. Renucci, Treaty of European Law
of the Human Rights, Hamangiu Press,
Bucharest, 2009
Radu Chiri, Paradigms of the Access
to Justice. How Free is the Access to Justice?
in the Romanian Pandects no. 1/2006
I. Muraru, Constitutional Law and
Political Institutions, Actami Press, Bucharest,
1997
D. Rdescu, E. Rdescu, G. Stoican,
Dictionary of Civil Law and Civil Procedures,
C. H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2009
I. Le, Treaty of Civil Processual Law,
4th Edition, C. H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2008
Gr. Theodoru, Treaty of Criminal
Processual Law, 2nd Edition, Hamanhiu Press,
Bucharest, 2008
Christophe Lefort, Procedure civile,
Dalloz, Paris, 2005

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

72

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

drepturilor omului. Comentariu pe articole.

Vol. I. Drepturi i liberti, Editura C.H.
Beck, Bucureti, 2005
M. Selegean, Dreptul de acces la o
instan reglementat de art. 6 paragraf 1 din
Convenia pentru Aprarea Drepturilor
Omului i a Libertilor Fundamentale,
Themis, nr. 1/2005

C. Brsan, European Convention of

Human Rights. Comment on Articles. Vol. I.
Rights and Freedoms, C.H. Beck Press,
Bucharest, 2005
M. Selegean, The Right to Access to an
Instance regulated by art. 6 paragraph 1 of the
Convention for Protecting the Basic Human
Rights and Freedoms, Themis, no. 1/2005

T. Drganu, Consideraii critice cu privire la caracterul absolut atribuit dreptului la liber acces la justiie de legea de
revizuire a Constituiei din 21 noiembrie 2003 n Pandectele Romne nr. 4/2004, p. 117.
2
J.-Fr. Renucci, Tratat de drept european al drepturilor omului, Editura Hamangiu, Bucureti, 2009, p. 357.
3
Radu Chiri, Paradigmele accesului la justiie. Ct de liber e accesul la justiie? n Pandectele Romne nr. 1/2006, p.
176.
4
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 420 din 13 septembrie 2005, publicat n Monitorul oficial al
Romniei nr. 936 din 20 octombrie 2005.
5
CEDO, cauza Vilvarajah i alii c. Regatului Unit, Hotrrea din 30 octombrie 1991; cauza Klass i alii c. Germania,
Hotrrea din 6 septembrie 1978.
6
Jurnalul Oficial C 303, 14/12/2007.
7
CEDO, cauza Golder c. Regatul Unit al Mari Britanii, Hotrrea din 21 februarie 1975, citat V. Berger, Jurisprudena
Curii Europene a Drepturilor Omului, Editura Regia Autonom Monitorul Oficial, 1997, p. 131.
8
Decizia Curii Constituionale nr. 60 din 14 octombrie 1993, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr. 12 din 19
ianuarie 1994.
9
I. Muraru, Drept constituional i instituii politice, Editura Actami, Bucureti, 1997, p. 205.
10
D. Rdescu, E. Rdescu, G. Stoican, Dicionar de drept civil i proceduri civile, Editura C. H. Beck, Bucureti, 2009, p.
516.
11
I. Le, Tratat de drept procesual civil, Ediia a 4-a, Editura C. H. Beck, Bucureti, 2008, p. 60.
12
Gr. Theodoru, Tratat de drept procesual penal, Ediia a 2-a, Editura Hamanhiu, Bucureti, 2008, p. 60.
13
CEDO, Cauza Albert i Le Compte c. Belgiei, Hotrrea din 10 februarie 1983; CEDO, cauza Beaumartin c. Franei,
Hotrrea din 24 noiembrie 1994,
14
CEDO, cauza H. c. Belgiei, Hotrrea din 30 noiembrie 1987; Hotrrea Belilos din 29 aprilie 1988 citate de R. Chiri,
Paradicmele accesului la justiie. Ct de liber e accesul liber la justiie? n Pandectele Romne nr. 1/2006, p. 188.
15
CEDO, cauza Bermeir c. Austriei, Hotrrea din 28 iunie 1990; CEDO, cauza Zumtobel c. Austriei, Hotrrea din 21
septembrie 1993.
16
Comisia, 12 octombrie 1978, Zanc c. Austria, apud J.-Fr. Renucci, op. cit., p. 428.
17
CEDO, cauza Kilin c. Republica Ceh, Hotrrea din 07 decembrie 2004, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2004, p. 101.
18
CEDO, cauza Terra Woningen B.V. c. Olandei, Hotrrea din 17 decembrie 1996, Recueil 1996-IV, vol. 25.
19
CEDH, 4 dc 1995, Bellet c France apud Christophe Lefort, Procedure civile, Dalloz, Paris, 2005, p. 31.
20
CEDO, cauza Campbell i Fell, Hotrrea din 28 iunie 1984.
21
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 953 din 19 decembrie 2006, Publicat n Monitorul oficial al
Romniei nr. 53 din 23 ianuarie 2007.
22
CEDO, Cauza Le Compte Van Leuven i De Mezere c. Belgiei, Hotrrea din 23 iunie 1981; Albert i Le Compte c.
Belgiei, Hotrrea din 1 februarie 1983.
23
Decizia Plenului Curii Constituionale nr. 1 din 8 februarie 1994 privind liberul acces la justiie al persoanelor n
aprarea drepturilor, libertilor i intereselor lor legitime, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr. 69 din 16
martie 1994.
24
CEDO, cauza Silver c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea din 25 martie 1983, seria A, nr. 61, p. 32, parag. 82; CEDO, cauza
Golden c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea din 21 februarie 1975, seria A, nr. 18, p. 19-20, parag. 40; CEDO cauza Campbell i
Fell, Hotrrea din 28 iunie 1984, seria A, nr. 80, p. 45, parag. 99.
25
CEDO, cauza Edwards c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea din 16 decembrie 1992, seria A nr. 247-B, p. 35, parag. 36.
26
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 694 din 20 mai 2010 publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr.
392 din 14 iunie 2010.
27
Autorul excepiei de neconstituionalitate a fost cercetat pentru svrirea infraciunii prevzute i pedepsite de art. 254
alin. 1 din Codul penal raportat la art. 6 din Legea nr. 78/2000 pentru prevenirea, descoperirea i sancionarea faptelor de
corupie i, dup ce instana de fond l-a achitat reinnd c nu sunt ntrunite elementele constitutive ale infraciunii, lipsind
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

73

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

latura subiectiv i cea obiectiv instana de apel l-a condamnat la o pedeaps privativ de libertate. Pentru acest motiv
inculpatul a formulat recurs mpotriva soluiei pronunate n apel i care a constituit obiectul dosarului nr. 78/62/2005 al
naltei Curi de Casaie i Justiie-Secia penal, dosar n care a fost invocat excepia de neconstituionalitate. Curtea a
constatat c autorului excepiei i-a fost suprimat accesul efectiv la o cale de atacn faa unei jurisdicii superioare cu scopul
de a contesta decizia prin care a fost declarat vinovat.
28
CEDO, cauza Piki c. Croatia, Hotrrea din 18 ianuarie 2005, n R. Chiri, Curtea European a Drepturilor Omului,
Culegere de hotrri, 2005, p. 121.
29
CEDO, cauza Rotaru c. Romniei, Hotrrea din 4 mai 2000;
30
CEDO, cauza Bifulco c. Italia, Hotrrea din 8 februarie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 122.
31
CEDO, cauza Kutic c. Croaie, Hotrrea din 1 martie 2002.
32
n doctrin s-a artat c obligaia pentru autoritile naionale de a executa deciziile judiciare devenite definitive
decurge, n mod logic, din dreptul de acces la un tribunal. A se vedea n acest sens P. Lambert, Le droit accs un
tribunal dans la CEDH, n Le procs quitable et la protection jurisdictionelle du citoyen, Colloque organis pour la 50me anniversaire de la CEDH, Bordeaux, 29-30 septembrie 2000, Ed. Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2001, p. 65.
33
CEDO, cauza Hornsby c. Greciei, Hotrrea din 19 martie 1997; CEDO, cauza Bourdov c. Rusiei, Hotrrea din 7 mai
2000; CEDO cauza Jasiuniene c. Lituaniei, Hotrrea din 6 martie 2003, CEDO, cauza Ruianu c. Romniei, Hotrrea
din 17 iunie 2003 citate de C. Brsan, Convenia european a drepturilor omului. Comentariu pe articole. Vol. I. Drepturi
i liberti, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2005, p. 477.
34
Nu orice neexecutare a unei hotrri este imputabil statului. n acest sens Curtea a artat c neexecutarea unei hotrri
din lipsa resurselor financiare ale debitorului care nu este controlat de stat nu reprezint o violare a dreptului de acces la
justiie(CEDO, cauza Katsynk c. Ucraina, Hotrrea din 05 aprilie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 128).
35
CEDO, cauza Hornsby c. Greciei, Hotrrea din 19 martie 1997, Rec. 1997-II, nr. 33, p. 512, parag. 45.; CEDO, cauza
Poznakhirina c. Federaia Rus, Hotrrea din din 24 februarie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 124; CEDO, cauza
Sandor c. Romnia, Hotrrea din 24 martie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 128; CEDO, cauza Mihai Iulian
Popescu c. Romnia, Hotrrea din 29 septembrie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 139-140; CEDO, cauza Tacea c.
Romnia, Hotrrea din 29 septembrie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 141. n sensul c neexecutarea unei hotrri
constituie o violare a dreptului de acces la justiie ntruct duce la lipsirea de orice efect util al unei hotrri judectoreti a
se vedea i CEDO cauza Fociac c. Romnia, Hotrrea din 03 februarie 205, . n aceast speu nu este ns vorba de o
nclcare a dreptului de acces la justiie , Curtea constatnd c statul nu are nicio culp n executarea hotrrii judectoreti
utiliznd cu rapiditate toate mijloacele de constrngere de care a dispus.
36
CEDO, cauza Bellet c. Franei, Hotrrea din 4 decembrie 1995; CEDO, cauza Stubbings i alii c. Regatului Unit,
Hotrrea din 22 octombrie 1996; CEDO, cauza Osman c. Regatului Unit, Hotrrea din 28 octombrie 1999; CEDO,
cauza Garcia Manibardo c. Spaniei, Hotrrea din 15 februarie 2000; CEDO, cauza Golder c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea
din 21 februarie 1975.
37
CEDO, cauza Vayopoulon c. Grecia, Hotrrea din 15 iulie 2004, n R. Chiri, Curtea European a Drepturilor
Omului, Culegere de Hotrri, 2004, Editura C.H. Beck, Bucureti, 2007, p. 95.
38
CEDO, cauza Ashingdane c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea din 28 mai 1985, seria A, nr. 93, p. 25-26, parag. 58-59.
39
CEDO, cauza Golder c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea din 21 februarie 1975, seria A, nr. 18, p. 18, parag. 37.
40
CEDO, cauza Stubbings i alii c. Marii Britanii, Hotrrea din 22 octombrie 1996, Recueil 1996-IV, vol. 18.
41
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 91 din 4 martie 2004 publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr.
345 din 20 aprilie 2004.
42
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 296 din 8 iulie 2003, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei nr.
557 din 12 august 2003.
43
CEDO, cauza Zvolsk i Zvolsk c. Republica Ceh, Hotrrea din 12 noiembrie 2002, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2004, p.
69.
44
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 647 din 5 octombrie 2006, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei
nr. 921 din 14 noiembrie 2006.
45
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 18 din 29 ianuarie 1997, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei,
Partea I, nr. 148 din 10 iulie 1997.
46
Curtea Constituional a Romniei, Decizia nr. 30/1999, publicat n Monitorul oficial al Romniei, partea I, nr. 178
din 26 aprilie 1999.
47
M. Selegean, Dreptul de acces la o instan reglementat de art. 6 paragraf 1 din Convenia pentru Aprarea
Drepturilor Omului i a Libertilor Fundamentale, Themis, nr. 1/2005, p. 23. i instana european a considerat c
obligarea la plata unor taxe de timbru foarte mari Constituie o restricie disproporionat a dreptului de acces la justiie
fiind necesar a se menine un raport de proporionalitate ntre interesul statului de a percepe taxe judiciare i interesul

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

74

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

reclamanilor de a-i susine preteniile n faa unei instane. A se vedea n acest sens CEDO, cauza Podbielski i PPU
Polpure c. Polonia, Hotrrea din 26 iulie 2005, n R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 136.
48
Adoptat de Comitetul Minitrilor n 14 mai 1981.
49
T. Drganu, Critical Considerations regarding the Absolute Feature Attributed to the Right of Free Access to Justice
by the Reviewing Law of the Constitution from November, 21st 2003 in the Romanian Pandects no. 4/2004, p. 117.
50
J.-Fr. Renucci, Treaty of European Law of the Human Rights, Hamangiu Press, Bucharest, 2009, p. 357.
51
Radu Chiri, Paradigms of the Access to Justice. How Free is the Access to Justice? in the Romanian Pandects no.
1/2006, p. 176.
52
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 420 from September, 13th 2005, published in the Romanian Official
Gazette no. 936 from October, 20th 2005.
53
ECHU, Vilvarajah cause and others vs. United Kingdom, Decision from October, 30th 1991; Klass cause and others
vs. Germany, Decision from September, 6th 1978.
54
Official Journal C 303, 14/12/2007.
55
ECHU, Golder cause vs. United Kingdom of Great Britain, Decision from February, 21st 1975, cited V. Berger,
Jurisprudence of the European Corut of Human Rights, Official Gazette Autonomous Overhead Press, 1997, p. 131.
56
Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 60 from October, 14th 1993, published in the Romanian Official Gazette
no. 12 from January, 19th 1994.
57
I. Muraru, Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, Actami Press, Bucharest, 1997, p. 205.
58
D. Rdescu, E. Rdescu, G. Stoican, Dictionary of Civil Law and Civil Procedures, C. H. Beck Press, Bucharest,
2009, p. 516.
59
I. Le, Treaty of Civil Processual Law, 4th Edition, C. H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2008, p. 60.
60
Gr. Theodoru, Treaty of Criminal Processual Law, 2nd Edition, Hamanhiu Press, Bucharest, 2008, p. 60.
61
ECHU, Albert and Le Compte cause vs. Belgium, Decision from February, 10th 1983; ECHU, Beaumartin vs. France
cause, Decision from November, 24th 1994,
62
ECHU, H. vs. Belgium cause, Decision from November, 30th 1987; Belilos Decision from April, 29th 1988 quoted by
R. Chiri, Paradigms of the Access to Justice. How free is the Access to Justice? in the Romanian Pandects no. 1/2006, p.
188.
63
ECHU, Bermeir vs. Austria cause, Decision from June, 28th 1990; ECHU, Zumtobel vs. Austria cause, Decision,
September, 21st 1993.
64
Commission, October, 12th 1978, Zanc vs. Austria, apud J.-Fr. Renucci, op. cit., p. 428.
65
ECHU, Kilin vs. Czech Republic cause, Decision from December, 7th 2004, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2004, p. 101.
66
ECHU, Terra Woningen B.V. vs. Netherland cause, Decision from December, 17th 1996, Recueil 1996-IV, vol. 25.
67
CEDH, 4 dc 1995, Bellet c France apud Christophe Lefort, Procedure civile, Dalloz, Paris, 2005, p. 31.
68
ECHU, Campbell i Fell cause, Decision from June, 28th 1984.
69
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 953 from December, 19th 2006, published in the Romanian Official
Gazette no. 53 from January, 23th 2007.
70
ECHU, Le Compte Van Leuven and De Mezere vs. Belgium cause, Decision from June, 23rd 1981; Albert and Le
Compte vs. Belgium, Decision from February, 1st 1983.
71
Decision of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court no. 1 from February, 8th 1994 regarding the free access to justice
of the persons in protecting their legal rights, freedoms and interests, published in the Romanian Official Gazette no. 69
from March, 16th 1994.
72
ECHU, Edwards vs. Great Britain cause, Decision from December, 16th 1992, A series no. 247-B, p. 35, paragraph
36.
73
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 694 from May, 20th 2010 published in the Romanian Official Gazette
no. 392 from June, 14th 2010.
74
The author of the unconstitutionality exception has been investigated for accomplishing the crime stipulated and
punished by art. 254, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code reported to art. 6 of Law no. 78/2000 for preventing, discovering
and sanctioning the corruption facts and, after the basic instance absolved him, given that there were not combined the
constitutive elements of the crime, as the subjective and objective side were missing, the appeal instance sentenced him to
a punishment depriving him from freedom. This is why the defendant formulated an appeal against the solution
pronounced in the appeal and that constituted the object of the file no. 78/62/2005 of the High Court of Cassation and
Justice Criminal Section, a file where it was invoked the exception of unconstitutionality. The Court has found that the
author of the exception had had suppressed the right the effective access to a way of attack in front of a higher jurisdiction
in order to contest dthe decision by means of which he was declared guilty.
75
ECHU, Piki vs. Croatia cause, Decision from January, 18th 2005, in R. Chiri, European Court of Human Rights,
Decision Book, 2005, p. 121.
Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

75

Analele Universitii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 2/2011

76

ECHU, Rotaru vs. Romania cause, Decision from May, 4th 2000;
ECHU, Bifulco vs. Italy cause, Decision from February, 8th 2005, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 122.
78
ECHU, Kutic vs. Croatia cause, Decision from March, 1st 2002.
79
In the doctrine it was shown that the obligation for the national authorities to execute the judicial decisions become
definitive comes logically from the right to access to a court. See in this sense P. Lambert, Le droit accs un tribunal
dans la CEDH, in Le procs quitable et la protection jurisdictionelle du citoyen, Colloque organis pour la 50-me
anniversaire de la CEDH, Bordeaux, September, 29th -30th 2000, Ed. Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2001, p. 65.
80
ECHU, Hornsby vs. Greece cause, Decision from March, 19th 1997; ECHU, Bourdov vs. Russia cause, Decision
from May, 7th 2000; ECHU Jasiuniene vs. Lithuania cause, Decision from March, 6th 2003, ECHU, Ruianu vs. Romania
cause, Decision from June, 17th 2003 cited by C. Brsan, European Convention of Human Rights. Comment on Articles.
Vol. I. Rights and Freedoms, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2005, p. 477.
81
Not every non-execution of a decision is imputable to the state. In this sense, the Court has shown that the nonexecution of a decision because of the lack of financial resources of the debtor who is not controlled by the state do not
represent a violation of the right to access to justice (ECHU, Katsynk vs. Ukraine versus, Decision from April, 5th 2005, in
R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 128).
82
ECHU, Hornsby vs. Greece cause, Decision from March, 19th 1997, Rec. 1997-II, no. 33, p. 512, paragraph 45.;
ECHU, Poznakhirina vs. Russian Federation cause, Decision from February, 24th 2005, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p.
124; ECHU, Sandor vs. Romania cause, Decision from March, 24th 2005, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 128; ECHU,
Mihai Iulian Popescu vs. Romania cause, Decision from September, 29th 2005, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 139-140;
ECHU, Tacea vs. Romania cause, Decision from September 29th 2005, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 141. Given that the
non-execution of a decision constitutes a violation of the right to access to justice whereas it leads to the absence of any
useful effect of a judicial decision, see also ECHU Fociac vs. Romania cause, Decision from February, 3rd 205,. In this
respect, it is not about a contravention of the right to access to justice, as the Court finds that the state has no guilt in the
execution of the judicial decision by using quickly all the constraining means it has.
83
ECHU, Bellet vs. France cause, Decision from December, 4th 1995; ECHU, Stubbings and others vs. United
Kingdom cause, Decision from October, 22nd 1996; ECHU, Osman vs. United Kingdom cause, Decision from October,
28th 1999; ECHU, Garcia Manibardo vs. Spain cause, Decision from February, 15th 2000; ECHU, Golder vs. Great
Britain cause, Decision from February, 21st 1975.
84
ECHU, Vayopoulon vs. Greece cause, Decision from July, 15th 2004, in R. Chiri, European Court of Human
Rights, Decision Book, 2004, C.H. Beck Press, Bucharest, 2007, p. 95.
85
ECHU, Ashingdane vs. Great Britain cause, Decision from May, 28th 1985, A series, no. 93, p. 25-26, paragraph 5859.
86
ECHU, Golder vs. Great Britain cause, Decision from February, 21st 1975, A series, no. 18, p. 18, paragraph 37.
87
ECHU, Stubbings and others vs. Great Britain cause, Decision from October, 22nd 1996, Recueil 1996-IV, vol. 18.
88
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 91 from March, 4th 2004 published in the Romanian Official Gazette
no. 345 from April, 20th 2004.
89
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 296 from July, 8th 2003, puvblished in the Romanian Official Gazette
no. 557 from August, 12th 2003.
90
ECHU, Zvolsk and Zvolsk vs. Czech Republic cause, Decision from November, 12th 2002, in R. Chiri, op. cit.,
2004, p. 69.
91
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 647 from October, 5th 2006, published in the Romanian Official
Gazette no. 921 from November, 14th 2006.
92
Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 18 from January, 29th 1997, published in the Romanian Official
Gazette, Part I, no. 148 from July, 10th 1997.
93
The Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision no. 30/1999, published in the Romanian Official Gazette, part I, no.
178 from April, 26th 1999.
94
M. Selegean, The Right to Access to an Instance regulated by art. 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention for Protecting the
Basic Human Rights and Freedoms, Themis, no. 1/2005, p. 23. And the European instance considered that forcing to pay
some very big stamp taxes constitute a disproportioned restriction of the right to access to justice, being necessary to keep
a proportionality report between the state interest to perceive judicial taxes and hte plaintiffs interest to support their
demands in front of an instance. In this sense see ECHU, Podbielski and PPU Polpure vs. Poland cause, Decision from
July, 26th 2005, in R. Chiri, op. cit., 2005, p. 136.
95
Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on May, 14th 1981.
77

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 2/2011

76