[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF BALINT v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 44954/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26
January 2010
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 Balint v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 January 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 44954/04) 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, Mr Ion Balint (“the applicant”), on 26
October 2004.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan Horaţiu
Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- On
15 November 2006, the
President of the Third Section decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. It was
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest.
- On
29 September 1994, the applicant was arrested mainly on charges of
robbery and trespassing. The criminal proceedings against him and
three other persons were opened the same day.
- On
28 November 1994, he was released from custody.
- In
an indictment dated 29 September 1995, the Prosecutor's Office
attached to the Bucharest County Court committed the applicant and
the three other persons for trial.
- On
12 October 1995 the case was registered with the Bucharest District
Court.
- On
2 April 1996, on an appeal by one of the co-accused against
an interlocutory judgment rendered in the case, the file was
sent to the Bucharest County Court, from where it was returned
on 13 May 1996 and was entered into the court's list on 29 May 1996.
However, none of the contents of the file could be found after this
date.
- Consequently,
on 7 March 1997, the District Court sent the case back to the County
Prosecutor's Office to reconstitute the file.
- On
6 June 1997, under Article 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
County Prosecutor's Office referred the case back to the District
Court, this being the appropriate judicial authority to reconstitute
the file at that stage of the proceedings.
- Therefore,
on 30 June 1997, the case was re-entered into the District Court's
list.
Several
items, such as the indictment and the arrest warrants, were requested
from the Prosecutor's Office.
- On
7 December 2001 the District Court considered the file reconstituted.
It gave judgment on 7 February 2003, sentencing the applicant to six
years' imprisonment.
- Most
of the adjournments of the hearings were caused by the failings of
the judicial authorities in summoning the defendants or civil parties
- Following
an appeal by the applicant, the sentence was upheld in a decision of
12 May 2004 of the Bucharest County Court and lastly in a final
decision of 29 July 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the outcome of the proceedings and the
length of the proceedings, which he considered incompatible with the
“reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 §
1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument invoking mainly the complexity of
the case and the conduct of the applicant as a cause of the
unnecessary delays.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 29 September 1994
and ended on 29 July 2004. It thus lasted nearly ten years for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the complaint regarding the length of proceedings
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.
- As
for the reminder of the application, namely, the complaint regarding
the outcome of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1, the Court
finds that in the light of all the material in its possession, and 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 or its Protocols. It follows
that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
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
and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see,
among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v.
France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
- 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 Pélissier and Sassi, 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.
The Court does not deny the relative complexity of the case due
mainly to the fact that there were three defendants charged with
several offences and a large number of victims and civil parties.
However, it appears from the analysis of the file that most of the
delays in the domestic proceedings were caused by the failings of the
judicial authorities in summoning the defendants or civil parties and
the loss of the file.
- 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. 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 100,000 Euros (EUR) in respect of nonpecuniary
damage. He did not claim any specific sum for pecuniary damage or
costs and expenses
- The
Government contested this claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained nonpecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 3,200
under that head.
B. 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 as regards the length of proceedings;
3. 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 3,200
(three thousand two hundred Euros) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, to be converted into Romanian lei 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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
