[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> TEICA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 2337/04 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 913 (20 October 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/913.html Cite as: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1020JUD000233704, CE:ECHR:2016:1020JUD000233704, [2016] ECHR 913

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF TEICĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Application no. 2337/04 and 22 others -
see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

20 October 2016

 

 

 

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




In the case of Teică and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
          Egidijus Kūris,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

7.  After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicants S.C. Alma Bucovina S.R.L. (in application no. 26485/04), S.C. T & G Trading S.R.L. (in application no. 28121/04), Florian Mițoi (in relation to the proceedings between 13 June 2001 and 25 March 2005, in application no. 40757/06) and Federalcoop Constanța (concerning the proceedings between 26 April 2001 and 21 January 2011, in application no. 48595/10) must be dismissed as they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

8.  As regards the other complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

9.  In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints and so it considers that in the instant case the length of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  Some of the applicants raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

It follows that this part of the applications is 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

14.  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.”

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the appended table, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 2337/04 and 35783/09 who failed to respond to the Court’s letters of 4 December 2009 and 27 April 2015, respectively, inviting them to submit their just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court.

16.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 complaints raised by the applicants S.C. Alma Bucovina S.R.L. (in application no. 26485/04), S.C. T & G Trading S.R.L. (in application no. 28121/04), Florian Mițoi (in relation to the proceedings between 13 June 2001 and 25 March 2005, in application no. 40757/06) and Federalcoop Constanța (concerning the proceedings between 26 April 2001 and 21 January 2011, in application no. 48595/10) inadmissible.

 

3.  Declares the remaining complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

 

4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

 

5.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

   Hasan Bakırcı                                                       Vincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy Registrar                                                                President

 




APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth/ Date of registration	Representative name and location	Start of proceedings	End of proceedings	Total length Levels of jurisdiction	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros)[1]
1.	2337/04 05/11/2003	Marin Vergil TEICĂ 06/03/1925		05/04/1996	15/07/2003	7 years and 3 months   3 levels of jurisdiction	0
2.	25482/04 23/04/2004	Ioan OPRIȘĂNESCU 04/07/1932	Mihai Paul Oprișănescu Bucharest	19/08/1999	13/10/2009	10 years and 1 month   3 levels of jurisdiction	1,200
3.	26485/04 28/06/2004	Alexandru MANDIUC 08/04/1955		29/06/1999	01/06/2006	6 years and 11 months   1 level of jurisdiction	2,000
4.	28121/04 28/04/2004	Georgeta ION 13/11/1955   Abdel Hady Hassan TAREK HASSAN 10/07/1959	Nicoleta Tatiana Popescu Bucharest	23/02/2001	14/06/2013	12 years and 3 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	2,400
5.	32099/06 20/07/2006	Vergil CATANĂ 27/04/1962		08/11/2000	19/01/2006	5 years and 2 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	800
6.	40757/06 18/09/2006	Florian MIŢOI 28/09/1953		19/09/2006	26/11/2010	4 years and 2 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	800
7.	47515/06 28/09/2006	Claudiu Gheorghe TOMA 08/08/1969		26/04/1999	05/04/2006	6 years and 11 months   3 levels of jurisdiction	500
8.	30883/07 05/06/2007	Household Vasile RIZEA 03/09/1953 Rodica RIZEA 15/05/1952		30/06/2000	18/01/2007	6 years and 6 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	1,800
9.	23243/08 10/05/2008	Household Ion STAN-ENACHE 21/11/1928 Ioana STAN-ENACHE 10/02/1935	Stan Enache Lucian Las Vegas	09/09/1999	13/11/2007	8 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction	1,200
10.	45244/08 09/09/2008	Household Jan CONSTANTIN 29/05/1951 Rada CONSTANTIN 02/12/1954	Cristina Georgeta Toma Bucharest	13/06/1996	12/03/2008	11 years and 9 months   3 levels of jurisdiction	3,000
11.	35783/09 01/06/2009	Ioana PETRACHE 02/09/1949		31/10/2003           07/10/2005	pending           13/12/2013	More than 12 years and 8 months   1 level of jurisdiction     8 years and 2 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	0
12.	37240/09 29/06/2009	Octavian GOŞA 31/03/1953		02/06/2000	12/12/2008	8 years and 6 months   1 level of jurisdiction	1,800
13.	61891/09 04/08/2009	Traian POPOVICIU 13/08/1949		23/09/1998	16/02/2009	10 years and 4 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	2,400
14.	65865/09 10/12/2009	Mugurel NIȚOIU 05/06/1966	Daniel Caraman Bucharest	09/01/2001	16/06/2009	8 years and 5 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	1,800
15.	10460/10 14/12/2009	Sándor KOCSIS 24/04/1956		15/08/1997	12/06/2009	11 years and 9 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	3,000
16.	48595/10 12/08/2010	FEDERALCOOP CONSTANŢA 02/04/1949		18/12/2003         07/07/2005	09/03/2010         07/06/2011	6 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     5 years and 11 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	2,000
17.	74375/10 06/12/2010	Mihai RADIANU 22/02/1954	Ulupinar Elena Roxana Bucharest	27/01/1995	10/06/2010	15 years and 4 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	3,600
18.	6692/12 17/01/2012	Elena RÎPEANU 18/10/1967		07/11/2007	18/11/2011	4 years   2 levels of jurisdiction	800
19.	9633/12 03/09/2011	Leonica POPESCU 22/07/1951		10/12/2003	08/03/2011	7 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction	900
20.	56627/12 27/08/2012	Veronica IOANICESCU 12/07/1947		08/09/2003	29/02/2012	8 years and 5 months   3 levels of jurisdiction	900
21.	29229/13 22/04/2013	Dragoș DUCIUC 11/09/1939   Ioan DUCIUC 15/04/1966   Rozalia RĂSTOACĂ 16/09/1960   Eufrosina DUCIUC 21/11/1968		27/01/2005	26/10/2012	7 years and 9 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	1,200
22.	41128/13 17/06/2013	Zoltan BOROS 08/05/1975	Krisztina Kecseti Miercurea Ciuc	24/07/2007	19/12/2012	5 years and 4 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	800
23.	76265/13 28/11/2013	Laurian SÎNGEAP 06/10/1956		27/12/2007   06/05/2009	03/09/2008   28/05/2013	4 years and 10 months   2 levels of jurisdiction	800

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.