[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF CRAIU v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 26662/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 October
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 Craiu v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Luis
López Guerra,
judges,
and Santiago
Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 26662/02) against Romania
lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by
two Romanian nationals, Mr Gheorghe Craiu and Ms Viorica Craiu
(“the applicants”), on 28 April 2000.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu
Radu.
- On
25 May 2007 the
President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was 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
applicants were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in
Nicolae Bălcescu.
- On
9 December 1992 the second applicant bought from M.I. a property
consisting of 3,000 sq. m of land and the buildings on it.
- On
20 April 1993 the second applicant brought an action against C.M. and
R.S. seeking recovery of possession of the property. She also
requested that R.S. be ordered to demolish what he had built on 1,000
sq. m of land.
The
defendants lodged a counterclaim against the local administrative
authorities, seeking to be certified as the owners of the property.
- On
4 March 1994 the Constanţa Court of
First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) allowed
the second applicant's action and ordered C.M. to leave 2,000 sq. m
of land and the buildings on it in her possession, considering R.S.
to be the owner of 1,000 sq. m of land.
- On
12 January 1995 the Constanţa Regional
Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld an appeal by C.M.,
quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for a fresh
examination, as the first-instance court had not considered the case
on the merits as regards the 2,000 sq. m of land after an adversarial
argument by the local administrative authorities.
- On
3 May 1995 the Constanţa Court of
Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) rejected as inadmissible
an appeal on points of law by the second applicant against the
judgment of the Regional Court.
- After
the retrial, on 29 April 1996 the Court of First Instance allowed the
second applicant's action and ordered C.M. to leave the house and the
2,000 sq. m of land in her possession, considering R.S. to be the
owner of 1,000 sq. m of land.
- On
26 March 1997 the Regional Court upheld an appeal by C.M., quashed
the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for
fresh consideration. It found that the original judgment had not been
signed by the registrar.
- After
the fresh examination, on 10 September 1997 the Court of First
Instance, after comparing the land titles, dismissed the second
applicant's action. It found that M.I. had not been the owner of the
property when he had sold it to the second applicant.
- On
1 July 1998 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged on
8 January 1998 by the first applicant as being brought by a
person with no capacity to take part in court proceedings, due to the
fact that he had not participated in the trial before the first
instance.
- On
20 April 1999 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law
by the second applicant, quashed the judgment of the Regional Court,
changed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case
back for a fresh examination. Taking into account the community of
property between spouses, the court considered that the property
under discussion belonged to both applicants and noted that the first
instance had not also summoned the first applicant. It ordered both
of them to be summoned during the trial on the merits.
- After
the retrial, on 1 March 2000 the Court of First Instance, after
comparing the land titles, rejected the applicants' action,
considering that their title had not come from an owner.
- On
14 February 2001 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the
applicants. That decision was upheld on 4 July 2001 by a final
decision of the Court of Appeal.
THE LAW
I. 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...”
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
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
Government submitted that the period to be taken into consideration
began on 20 June 1994 for the second applicant and on 8 January
1998 for the first applicant, the date when he lodged an appeal
against the judgment of 10 September 1997.
- The
applicants did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court reiterates that its case-law on the intervention of third
parties in civil proceedings makes the following distinction: where
the applicant has intervened in domestic proceedings only on his or
her own behalf the period to be taken into consideration begins to
run from that date, whereas if the applicant has declared his or her
intention to continue the proceedings as heir, he or she can complain
of the entire length of the proceedings (see, in particular,
Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 113,
ECHR 2006 ...).
- The
Court notes that the applicants were under the regime of the
community of property between spouses and that the domestic courts
quashed a judgment which assumed that the first applicant had no
capacity to take part in court proceedings (see paragraph 14 above).
In any case, the Court must take into consideration the ensemble of
the proceedings.
- The period to be taken into consideration therefore
began on
20 June 1994, when Romania ratified the Convention.
However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time which elapsed
after that date, account must be taken of the state of the
proceedings at the time.
The
period in question ended on 4 July 2001. It thus lasted seven years
and fourteen days for three levels of jurisdiction.
2. Reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
- The
Government submitted that the case had been complex and that the
authorities had showed due diligence when examining the case.
- The
applicants maintained their allegations.
- 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 and what
was at stake for the applicants 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).
Moreover,
the Court has already found that, although it is not in a position to
analyse the juridical quality of the case-law of the domestic courts,
since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as
a result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such
orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency
in the judicial system. Moreover, this deficiency is imputable to the
authorities and not the applicants (see Wierciszewska v. Poland,
no. 41431/98, § 46,
25 November 2003, and Matica v.
Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006).
- 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.
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
applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of
an unfair trial and of the outcome of the case. They also claimed to
be victims of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in so
far as the proceedings had not allowed them to recover their
property.
- As
regards the first part of the applicants' complaints, the Court
observes that the allegations in respect of abuses of process by the
authorities are unsubstantiated, whereas the complaint regarding the
outcome is of a “fourth-instance” nature. Moreover, the
Court considers that in the proceedings complained of, seen as a
whole, there is no appearance of unfairness or arbitrariness which
would infringe the guarantees of a fair hearing within the meaning of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
- In
so far as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is concerned, the Court
considers that the applicants have not shown that they had a claim
which was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and they
therefore cannot argue that they had a “possession”
within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other
authorities, Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic
(dec.), no. 39794/98, ECHR 2002 VII).
It
follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione
materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance
with Article 35 § 4.
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
applicants claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing the value of the property they had lost. They also
claimed EUR 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- 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 this claim.
However, it considers that the applicants must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them
jointly EUR 2,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts, representing lawyer's fees, stamp duties
and transport. They submitted that the bills are in the file.
- The
Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
- 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 have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. The Court considers that the applicants
have not shown that the legal costs and expenses claimed by them were
incurred in order to prompt domestic courts to comply with the
requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Zimmermann and Steiner v.
Switzerland, 13 July 1983, § 37, Series A no. 66).
It therefore rejects the claim for 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 jointly to the applicants, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 2,000
(two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
