BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF PĂUNOIU v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 32700/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
September 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Păunoiu v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power,
judges,
and Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 26 August 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 32700/04) 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, Ms Ileana Păunoiu
(“the applicant”), on 16 July 2004.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
- On
10 July 2007 the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Oreovica (Serbia).
A. Claim for damage in criminal proceedings against
M.I.
- On
10 July 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by
M.I. She claimed damages in criminal proceedings that were instituted
against M.I.
- In
a final decision of 19 November 1998, the Piteşti Court of
Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) made awards in respect of
pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage to both the applicant and her
husband. It also ordered M.I. to pay a monthly amount to the
applicant until her state of dependency ceased. On 7 July and 15
December 2000 the quantum of damages and the level of the monthly
instalments to the applicant were brought up to date.
- On
15 November 2002 an application by the Prosecutor General at the
Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments in the criminal
proceedings quashed (recurs în anulare) was granted by
the Supreme Court of Justice, which therefore set aside the award for
damage in respect of the applicant's husband.
B. Partition proceedings
- On
21 September 1999 the applicant and her husband brought an action
seeking the division of property that was jointly owned by M.I. and
his wife. They alleged that the community of property between spouses
had hindered the enforcement of the judgment in their favour, which
concerned only M.I.
- On
7 November 2000 the Piteşti Court of First Instance (“the
Court of First Instance”) upheld their claims in part, severed
the joint tenancy between M.I. and his wife, and allocated their
apartment to M.I.
- On
19 April 2001 the Argeş Regional Court (“the Regional
Court”) struck out an appeal by M.I. and his wife because they
had failed to pay the prescribed fee.
- On
4 September 2001 the Court of Appeal by a final decision upheld an
appeal by M.I. and his wife and quashed the judgment of the Regional
Court, sending the case back for a fresh examination of their appeal.
It found that M.I. and his wife had not been informed of the
obligation to pay the fee or of the amount due.
- After
a retrial, on 29 April 2002 the Regional Court rejected the appeal of
M.I. and her wife as groundless.
- On
16 February 2004 the Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed a
subsequent appeal by M.I.'s wife, on the ground that the courts had
not examined her counterclaim, and quashed the judgment of the
Regional Court. It retained the case for further consideration. On
22 November 2004 the same court decided that the case was within
the competence of the Regional Court.
- On
15 April 2005 the Regional Court upheld the appeal of M.I.'s wife and
varied the judgment of 7 November 2000 as follows: it allowed the
applicant's claims but rejected her husband's, it severed the joint
tenancy between M.I. and his wife, and it allocated their apartment
to M.I. to enable the applicant to recover her financial claims. The
judgment was enforceable.
- On 31 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld that
judgment in a final decision.
C. Attempts to recover the damage
- Between
2001 and 2005 the applicant requested seven different bailiffs to
enforce the judgment in her favour. The bailiffs took various steps,
including requesting expert reports and putting M.I.'s apartment on
sale by public auction.
- On
12 June 2001 the Court of First Instance requested the Inspectorate
of Police in Argeş to assign a police officer to accompany the
bailiff to M.I.'s apartment. On 20 December 2002 it ordered M.I. to
pay the judgment debt to the applicant, and stipulated that his
apartment would be put on sale if he did not.
- On
19 December 2005 the bailiff recorded that the applicant had received
part of the amount due and had requested continued execution for the
remainder.
- On
29 December 2005 M.I. sold the apartment. The applicant and her
husband lodged a civil action seeking a declaration that the sale
contract was null and void on the ground that M.I. had attempted to
become insolvent. On 19 October 2007 the Regional Court by a
final decision dismissed the action as groundless.
- On
10 November 2006 the applicant, through the bailiff, requested the
court to validate a seizure of property. On 19 January 2007 the Court
of First Instance rejected the application as being statute-barred.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the partition proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable-time” requirement
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on
21 September 1999
and ended on 31 October 2005. It thus lasted six years, one month and
ten days for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Moreover, the dispute in the present case was related to compensation
for damage to health. The Court is of the opinion that the nature of
the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the
domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Marchenko v.
Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in
the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant made various complaints under Article 6 § 1 with
respect to the partition proceedings, alleging that the domestic
courts had failed to assess the facts correctly, had misinterpreted
the domestic law and had not been impartial. She also complained of
her inability to enforce the judgment in her favour and to compel
M.I. to pay her the outstanding part of the award in respect of
damage.
- Having
carefully considered the applicant's submissions in the light of all
the material in its possession, the Court finds that, in so far as
the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention. Moreover, as regards the complaint about the
partial
non-execution of a final judgment in civil proceedings
between private individuals, there is no appearance of a lack of
diligence by the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Fociac v.
Romania, no. 2577/02, §§ 68-78, 3 February
2005).
- It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing living expenses incurred as a consequence of the
accident. She also claimed EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim for pecuniary damage on the ground
that no causal link between the pecuniary damage sought and the
alleged length-of-proceedings violation could be found. Further, they
considered that a finding of a violation would constitute in itself
sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the
applicant may have suffered. In any event, they considered that the
amount claimed in that respect was too high.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violation found. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards a total sum of EUR 700 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 4,282 for the costs and expenses incurred
in the proceedings in the domestic courts and before this Court,
broken down as follows: EUR 782 for lawyer's fees and sundry
expenses, and EUR 3,500 for transport from Serbia to Romania and
translations. She submitted invoices for lawyer's fees dated April
2000, December 2005 and January 2006, and for the payment of expert's
fees, stamp duty and fuel.
- The
Government contested these claims. They considered that two of the
contracts for judicial assistance had been concluded after the end of
the proceedings, that the expert's fees had been recovered by the
applicant in the domestic proceedings, and that the stamp duty and
the fee for the lawyer paid in April 2000 could have been recovered
by the applicant, had they been requested.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and to the above criteria, and
making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 500 in respect
of costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 700 (seven
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within the same three
months, the amount of EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable to her, in respect of costs and expenses;
(c) that
the aforementioned amounts shall be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement;
(d) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 September 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago
Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
