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 MATICA v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 19567/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 November
2006
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 Matica v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr B.M.
Zupančič, President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr C.
Bîrsan,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Gyulumyan,
Mr David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Mrs I. Ziemele, judges,
and
Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 19567/02) against Romania
lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by
three Romanian nationals, Mrs Maria Matica, Maria-Marieta Matica
and Dorina Meri Matica (“the applicants”), on 25
April 2002.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr T. Cadar, a lawyer
practising in Bihor, Romania. The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mrs R. Rizoiu and then by Mrs B. Ramaşcanu who
replaced her.
- On
6 September 2005 the
Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of
the proceedings to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of
the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of
the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicants, mother and daughters, were born in 1937, 1957 and 1966.
Mrs Maria Matica, the mother, died on 3 September 2004 and
Mrs Maria-Marieta Matica died on 27 July 2006. Mrs Doina-Meri
Matica is their sole heir. She currently lives in Copăceni,
Romania.
- On
18 June 1992, the first applicant and V.M., her husband, lodged
an action with the Beiuş District Court seeking a
declaration that they were the owners of a plot of land and,
accordingly, an order for their ownership title to be published in
the Land Registry. On 5 October 1992, they supplemented their action,
also seeking a declaration that the property deed for the same plot
of land issued to third parties was null and void. They claimed that
they had purchased, in 1981, the respective plot of land, together
with a house that had been built on it.
- On
1 February 1993, the action was partially allowed. However, on 2 July
1993, the Bihor County Court, acting upon the claimants’
appeal, referred the case back to the District Court for a fresh
examination, on the ground that the latter court omitted to rule on
one of the complaints.
Of
the fourteen hearing held between 14 October 1993 and
27 October 1994, ten were adjourned for the absence of
witnesses or of the expert reports, one at the first
applicant’s request in order to hire a lawyer and one for
deliberations.
In a
decision of 27 October 1994, the Beiuş District Court remitted
to the Oradea Court of Appeal the complaint concerning the
nullity of the property deed issued to third parties, and stayed
the examination of the other complaints until the validity of the
property deed would be decided by the appropriate courts.
- Before
the Court of Appeal one hearing was adjourned for the applicants
to hire a lawyer and one for problems with the summonsing procedure.
After another postponed hearing due to failure in the summonsing
procedure, on 15 May 1995 the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the
action on the ground that the first applicant and her husband had not
exhausted the preliminary administrative procedure before lodging
their complaints with the courts.
- The
first applicant and her husband appealed against this decision,
considering that the Court of Appeal was not competent to examine
the matter. On 5 June 1996, the Supreme Court of Justice allowed
the appeal and remitted the case to the Beiuş District Court.
- Twelve
hearings were held before this court, most of them being adjourned
due to the absence of any answer to the claimants’ requests of
information from the local authorities in support of their claims.
The
Beiuş District Court dismissed all the complaints formulated by
the applicants, in a judgment of 16 July 1998. All parties appealed.
- On
26 March 1999, the Bihor County Court referred the case back to the
District Court, on the ground that no specific action had been
ordered to the administrative authorities responsible for the
deliverance of the property deed, although they were parties to
the proceedings.
- On
17 December 1999, the Beiuş District Court re-examined the
action and dismissed it.
- On
9 February 2000, V.M. died and the action was continued by his wife
and daughters, the applicants.
- On
30 April 2001, the applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the
Bihor County Court.
- In
a final decision of 3 December 2001, the Oradea Court of Appeal
confirmed the solution, upon the applicants’ appeal on points
of law.
- Based
on the evidence adduced in the case, namely the purchase contract of
1981 and witness testimony, the courts found that, in 1981, the
applicants only bought the house and not the land in question.
Furthermore, they could not bring any evidence showing that the
intention of the parties of the 1981 contract had been to transfer
the ownership of the land. In addition, the court could find no
ground to declare the third parties’ ownership title
null and void.
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
- The
Government considered that the case had been very complex and that
the applicants had contributed significantly to its protraction in
particular by supplementing their initial action after the beginning
of the proceedings, by filing appeal against the first judgment,
that of 1 February 1993, although it had been
favourable to them and by requesting several adjournments for hearing
of witnesses. Although significant delays had been caused by the fact
that the witnesses had not appeared before the courts, the applicants
had not wished to wave their right to hearing of witnesses.
The
Government pointed out that the period to be taken into account for
the first applicant began to run on 20 June 1994, when Romania
ratified the Convention, whereas for the other applicants it
started on 9 February 2000, when they joined the
proceedings. Relying on the case of Farcaş and others
v. Romania (no. 67020/01, § 30, 10 November 2005), they
concluded that the Court should examine separately their situation.
Bearing
in mind what was at stake for the applicants, the Government
considered that they had not suffered any damage as a result of the
delays in the proceedings. Lastly, they recalled that no periods of
total inactivity had occurred, and concluded that the authorities had
been diligent.
- The
Court recalls firstly that in the case of Farcaş and others
cited above it considered that the heirs of a deceased claimant
started the proceedings at the date when the claimant himself
did (see paragraph 27 of the said judgment). It sees no reason to
depart from this interpretation.
- It
follows that the period to be taken into consideration began for all
the applicants on 20 June 1994, when Romania ratified the Convention.
However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed
after that date, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings at the time. Accordingly, more than two years after the
date when the initial action had been lodged, the case was still
pending before the court of first instance.
The
period in question ended on 3 December 2001. It thus lasted
seven years, five months and thirteen days for three levels of
jurisdiction. Ten courts heard the case throughout this period.
- 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).
- Bearing
in mind its competence ratione temporis, the Court will not
look into the arguments concerning the period before the ratification
of the Convention by the respondent State, namely the
supplementation of the initial action and the appeal against the
first judgement in the case. It further recalls that the
applicants cannot be found responsible for the protraction of
the case for not having waived their right to hearing of witnesses,
as this is an integral part of their right to a fair trial, also
protected by Article 6 of the Convention.
- Moreover,
the Court reiterates that even in legal systems applying the
principle that the procedural initiative lies with the parties,
the latter’s attitude does not dispense the courts
from ensuring the expeditious trial required by Article 6 §
1 (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 129,
8 June 2006).
- Lastly,
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 (see
Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46,
25 November 2003). Moreover, this deficiency is imputable
to the authorities and not the applicants.
- Having
examined all the materials submitted to it and 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, that the proceedings
in the case were unfair. They also claimed to be victims of a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention in so far as the national
law did not provide any effective remedy to challenge the final
decision of 3 December 2001.
- In
so far as the fairness of the proceeding is questioned by
the applicants, the courts seem to have adopted their solution
based on the evidence adduced to the case. There is nothing in
the case file that would indicate that the examination of the facts
and application of the national law were unfair or arbitrary against
the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
- In
so far as Article 13 of the Convention is concerned, the Court
recalls that this provision does not guarantee a remedy against
legislation nor does it require that there should be several levels
of jurisdiction.
- It
follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
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 the restitution of their property and
100 000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage caused by the loss of the property and the
proceedings before the numerous national courts.
-
The Government contested the claim on the ground that no causal link
between the pecuniary damages sought and the alleged violation of the
reasonable length of proceedings could be found. They also considered
that EUR 100 000 in non-pecuniary damages is an exorbitant
claim.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
On the other hand, it awards EUR 4,200 for non-pecuniary damage
to be paid to the surviving applicant.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants claimed EUR 1,500 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. They also requested the reimbursement of the
expenses incurred before the national courts but did not quantify
them and claimed that all the bills are in the files of the national
courts. Lastly, they claimed EUR 1,000 for future expenses with
new proceedings that they would start with the national courts
after the finding of a violation in the present case.
- The
Government contested these claims and asked the Court to reimburse
only the costs that were necessarily incurred.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled
to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it
has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred
and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being
had to the information in its possession and the above criteria,
the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the
domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award EUR 500 for
the proceedings before the Court.
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 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 the surviving
applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment
becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, EUR 4,200 (four thousand two hundred euros)
in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros)
in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(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’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 November 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President
