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 COJOCARU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications
nos. 27269/07, 48668/07 and 20729/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 July
2011
This
judgment is final but it
may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cojocaru and Others v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ján
Šikuta,
President,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 June 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
cases originated in three
applications (nos. 27269/07, 48668/07 and 20729/09)
against Romania lodged
with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by four Romanian nationals, Daniel Cojocaru, Marin Cesar, Cezar
Bogdan Ruse and Gabriela Ruse, (“the applicants”).
Details as to the applicants’ dates of birth, introduction of
the applications as well as their representatives are indicated in
the appended table. The Romanian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu,
from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
30 March
and 9 November 2009 respectively, the President of the Third Section
decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was
also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same
time as their admissibility (former Article 29 § 3). In
accordance with Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent
Government, the applications were assigned to a Committee of three
Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES
-
The details as to the subject matter of the cases, reference dates
for the start and end of the proceedings and the length of the
proceedings are set out in the table appended hereto.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
- Having
regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court
finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the 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 expressed the opposite view. As regards application no.
20729/09, they asked the Court to declare it inadmissible as
manifestly ill-founded and argued that most of the delays in the
trial were imputable to the applicants and that the State could not
be found responsible for the overall length of the proceedings.
A. Admissibility
- Regarding
application no. 48668/07, the Government considered that the
applicant had lodged it on 6 November 2007, namely more than six
months after the date of the final decision, which was taken on 4 May
2007. The applicant contested this argument.
- The
Court notes that the first letter of the applicant was sent on
31 October 2007; therefore, his complaint was raised within
the six month time limit set forth under Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention.
- The
Court concludes that the applicants’ complaints regarding the
excessive length of the proceedings are not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds.
They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Commencement of the period to be taken into account
in respect of application no. 27269/07
- The
Government argued that for the calculation of the period to be taken
into account, the Court should consider that the action (a request
for division of common property) was brought before the domestic
courts on 4 February 2000 and that the proceedings have
been suspended for more than one year, pending the outcome of another
case (a petition for divorce).
- In
this regard, the Court notes that the action was in fact lodged on
3 March 1999, together with the petition for divorce.
- When
determining the period to be taken into account, the Court has regard
to its case-law according to which in civil proceedings, the
“reasonable time” begins at the moment the action was
instituted before the tribunal (for example, Erkner and Hofauer v.
Austria, judgment of 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117,
§ 64).
- Furthermore,
it is not the Court’s task to determine whether there existed a
sufficient link between the two sets of proceedings and whether the
proceedings at issue were thus properly stayed, because, as a general
rule, it is for the domestic courts to establish the facts and to
interpret and apply national law. The Court will not interfere with
their rulings, unless the applicants succeed in demonstrating that
they acted arbitrarily. Nor can the Court find that a system
providing for the dependence of one set of civil proceedings on
another one, when they concern the same or related facts, goes per
se against the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention
(Kiurkchian v. Bulgaria, no. 44626/98, § 68,
24 March 2005).
- In
light of the above, the Court considers that for the purpose of
assessing the merits of the applicant’s complaint, the overall
length of the proceedings is to be taken into account, which is of
seven years and nine months, calculated from the date of lodging of
the original proceedings.
2. The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
- The
Government argued that the applicants had contributed to the delays
in the proceedings.
All
the applicants contested this argument.
- 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 applicants and the relevant authorities (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
cases (see Frydlender, cited above, Abramiuc v. Romania,
no. 37411/02, § 130, 24 February 2009).
- In
the present cases, having regard to the length of the proceedings as
mentioned in the appended table, and 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 particular, even if the applicants’
conduct was not beyond reproach, the Court considers that the
judicial authorities were responsible for most of the delays (see,
mutatis mutandis, Beaumartin v. France, 24 November
1994, § 33, Series A no. 296 B). In the light of its
case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in these cases 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Invoking
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of
the outcome and the unfairness of the proceedings, as well as of the
independence and or impartiality of the courts. They argued that the
courts wrongfully assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the
applicable legal provisions (all applications).
- Invoking
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they also raised complaints concerning
alleged violations of property rights or alleged rights to
compensation (all applications).
- Having
considered the applicants’ submissions in the light of all the
material in its possession, the Court finds that, insofar 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.
- It
follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
IV. 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
applicants have submitted the following claims in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage:
|
No.
|
Application no.
|
Pecuniary damage
|
Non-pecuniary damage
|
|
1.
|
27269/07
|
EUR 5,500
|
EUR 4,000
|
|
2.
|
48668/07
|
EUR 1,000
|
EUR 5,000
|
|
3.
|
20729/09
|
EUR 235,568
|
EUR 20,000
|
The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects these claims.
- On
the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage.
Ruling
on an equitable basis, it awards them the following amounts under
that head:
EUR 2,000 to the
applicant in application no. 27269/07;
EUR 1,200 to the
applicant in application no. 48668/07;
EUR 3,400 jointly to
the applicants in application no. 20729/09.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
Court notes that only the applicant in application no. 27269/07
has submitted claims for costs and expenses. He claimed the sum of
RON 3,330.20, covering for the correspondence and the
representation before the Court.
- Having
regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the
Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 700 in respect
of this applicant.
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
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible in respect of all applications
and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following
amounts, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent
State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax
that may be chargeable to the applicants:
EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 (seven hundred
euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no.
27269/07;
EUR 1,200 (one
thousand two hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the
applicant in application no. 48668/07;
EUR 3,400 (three
thousand four hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage jointly to the
applicants in application no. 20729/09;
(b) 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 applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta
Deputy Registrar President
Appendix 1
|
No.
|
Case no. and date of lodging
|
Applicant’s Details
|
Length of the proceedings and levels of
jurisdiction
|
Subject Matter
|
|
1.
|
27269/07
13 June 2007
|
Daniel
COJOCARU
Born
in 1952 and residing in Brasov; represented by Ioan Nicolae, a
lawyer practising in Brasov.
|
3 March 1999 - 15
December 2006
7 years, 9 months,
12 days
Levels: 2 (before 4 courts)
|
Civil proceedings concerning the
division of common property following the applicant’s
divorce.
|
|
2.
|
48668/07
31 October 2007
|
Marin
CESAR
Born
in 1926 and residing in Bucharest.
|
3 September 2002 - 4
May 2007
4 years, 8 months, 1
day
Levels: 2 (before 2 courts)
|
Proceedings
brought by the applicant against third parties contesting the
amount of the charges he had to pay for his apartment.
|
|
3.
|
20729/09
9 April 2009
|
Cezar
Bogdan RUSE and Gabriela RUSE
(husband
and wife)
Born in 1954 and in 1950
respectively and residing in Bucharest.
|
22 September 1996 -
20 October 2008
12 years, 28 days
Levels: 3 (before 6 courts)
|
Proceedings
brought by third parties against the applicants and the Bucharest
Mayor’s Office seeking the return of property rights and the
annulment of the sale contract over the immovable property that
the applicants had bought from the State on the basis of Law No.
112 of 1995.
|
