THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VELCESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 29190/04, 25966/05, 1781/07, 16270/07, 20277/07 and 57610/08)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 July 2011

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Velcescu 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
1.  The case originated in six applications (nos. 29190/04, 25966/05, 1781/07, 16270/07, 20277/07 and 57610/08) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight Romanian nationals, Ioana Maria Velcescu, Anica Maican, Alexandru Popovici Maican, Fevronia Vîlcu, Nadia Surlea, Steliana Pascu, Maria Sabău and Maria Macovei, (“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.
2.  On 3 September 2008, 30 March and 22 May 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 CASE
3.  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
4.  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
5.  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...”
6.  The Government expressed the opposite view.
A.  Admissibility
7.  The Court notes 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
8.  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)
9.  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).
10.  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 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
11.  Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the outcome and the unfairness of the proceedings, in so far as the courts wrongfully assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions (all applications).
12.  Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they also raised complaints concerning alleged violations of property rights or alleged rights to compensation.
13.  The applicant in application no. 16270/07 also complained under Article 13 regarding an effective remedy for the determination of her property rights.
14.  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.
15.  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
16.  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
17.  The applicants have submitted the following claims in respect of pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage, except for the applicant in application no. 20277/07, who did not submit any claims in this respect:

No.	Application no.	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	
1.	29190/04	EUR 409,200	EUR 50,000	
2.	25966/05	EUR 250,000	EUR 250,000	
3.	1781/07	No claims	EUR 3,000	
4.	16270/07	EUR 50,000	EUR 50,000	
5.	20277/07	No claims	No claims	
6.	57610/08	RON 43,823.44
(EUR 10,500)	EUR 34,000	

18.  As the applicant in application no. 20277/07 did not submit any claims for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum in this respect for this applicant.
19.  The Government contested the claims submitted by the other applicants.
20.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects these claims.
21.  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 1,500 jointly to the applicants in application no. 29190/04;
-	EUR 450 to the applicant in application no. 25966/05;
-	EUR 450 to the applicant in application no. 1781/07;
-	EUR 450 to the applicant in application no. 16270/07;
-	EUR 2,000 to the applicant in application no. 57610/08.
B.  Costs and expenses
22.  Some of the applicants have submitted claims for costs and expenses.
23.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers that there is no call to award any sum in this respect to the applicants who have not submitted such claims. Furthermore, the claims submitted by the applicants and which are not supported by documents are to be rejected. Finally, the Court considers it reasonable to award the following sums covering costs under all heads, as follows:

No.	Application no.	Amounts claimed	Amounts supported by documents	Amount awarded	
1.	29190/04	EUR 1,000	RON 328 	EUR 80	
2.	25966/05	No claims	n/a	n/a	
3.	1781/07	EUR 10,750	None	None	
4.	16270/07	EUR 30,000	None	None	
5.	20277/07	RON 4,300
(EUR 1,000)	RON 4,300
	EUR 200	
6.	57610/08	No claims	n/a	n/a	
C.  Default interest
24.  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

1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible in respect of all applications and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 80 (eighty euros) for costs and expenses jointly to the applicants in application no. 29190/04;
(ii)  EUR 450 (four hundred fifty euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 25966/05;
(iii)  EUR 450 (four hundred fifty euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 1781/07;
(iv)  EUR 450 (four hundred fifty euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no.16270/07;
(v)  EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 20277/07;
(vi)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 57610/08.
(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;

5.  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/Levels of jurisdiction	Subject Matter	
1.	29190/04
21 July 2004	Ioana Maria VELCESCU, Anica MAICAN, Alexandru POPOVICI MAICAN
Born in 1945, 1930 and 1972 respectively, and residing in Bucharest; represented by Ms M. F. Balint, a lawyer practising in Bucharest	12 February 1997 –
28 January 2004
6 years, 11 months, 16 days
Levels: 3 (before 10 courts)	Action seeking the recovery of possession on a previously nationalised immovable.	
2.	25966/05
1 June 2005	Fevronia VILCU
Born in 1948 and residing in Bucharest	19 October 1998 –
21 January 2005
6 years, 2 months, 29 days
Levels: 3 (before 3 courts)	Civil proceedings brought by the applicant against a third party, seeking the recognition of her inheritance rights and the division of the inheritance.	

3.	1781/07
13 December 2006	Nadia SURLEA
Born in 1954 and residing in Bucharest; represented by Mr V. Topârceanu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest	18 September 2000 -
8 February 2007
6 years, 4 months, 20 days
Levels: 3 (before 6 courts)	Civil proceedings brought by the applicants against third parties, seeking the annulment of decisions of the stock-holders’ meeting.	
No.	Case no. and date of lodging	Applicant’s Details	Length of the proceedings/Levels of jurisdiction	Subject Matter	
4.	16270/07
19 March 2007	Steliana PASCU
Born in 1931 and residing in Godeni; represented by Ms V. David and by Mr G. Bercea, a lawyer practising in Bucharest	19 May 2000 -
12 October 2006
6 years, 4 months, 23 days
Levels: 3 (before 7 courts)	Civil proceedings against the applicant brought by the Godeni Local Council regarding the occupation by her of land belonging to the public domain.
	
5.	20277/07
20 April 2007	Maria SABAU
Born in 1949 and residing in Bucharest	15 February 2001 -
26 October 2006
5 years, 8 months, 11 days
Levels: 2 (before 6 courts)	Civil proceedings brought against the applicant for miscalculation of the contributions her employer had to pay for all the employees as social insurance.
	
6.	57610/08
21 November 2008	Maria MACOVEI
Born in 1939 and residing in Suceava	15 October 2002 -
27 May 2008
5 years, 7 months, 12 days
Levels: 2 (before 6 courts)	Civil proceedings brought by third parties against the applicant seeking the division of an inheritance.