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
DRĂGĂNESCU
v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 29301/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
September 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 Drăgănescu
v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Stanley Naismith, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 29301/03) 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 Remus Drăgănescu
and Ms Ecaterina Drăgănescu
(“the applicants”), on 19 July 2003.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
- On
10 July 2007 the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It 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 1936 and 1947 respectively and live in
Bucharest.
- On
28 May 1994 the applicants were injured in a car accident caused by
B.F. On 17 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor attached to the
Alexandria Court of First Instance committed B.F. for trial,
mentioning that the first applicant had applied to join the criminal
proceedings as a civil party seeking damages. On 16 February
1995 the second applicant claimed damages as well.
- On
6 May 1996 the Alexandria Court of First Instance convicted B.F. of
having negligently caused bodily harm, held him personally liable and
awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicants.
It also ordered B.F. to pay the first applicant a monthly sum pending
his recovery.
- On
15 November 1996 the Teleorman Regional Court upheld the appeals
lodged by all the parties and ordered that the case be severed,
fixing a hearing for the continuation of the ruling on the civil
action. It considered that the first-instance court should have
brought the technical and medical expert reports up to date and
should have ordered an expert accountant’s report. This ruling
was upheld on 10 April 1997 by a final decision of the Bucharest
Court of Appeal.
- Of
the thirty-eight hearings held between 1 July 1996 and 10 December
1999 six were adjourned at the first applicant’s request. On
26 June 1998, at the first applicant’s request, the case
was transferred to the Bucharest Regional Court.
- On
17 December 1999 the Bucharest Regional Court rejected the
applicants’ appeal against the amount of damages awarded by the
judgment of 6 May 1996 and on 16 February 2000 the Bucharest Court of
Appeal upheld this decision in a final judgment.
- On
6 July 2001 an application by the Prosecutor General at the Supreme
Court of Justice to have the judgments in the criminal proceedings
quashed (recurs în anulare) was granted by the Supreme
Court of Justice, which therefore set aside the judgments of 17
December 1999 and 16 February 2000 and sent the case back to the
Regional Court for fresh examination. It considered that the courts
had misinterpreted the law, that the quantum of damages had not been
correctly assessed and that the Bucharest Regional Court had, on 3
December 1999, unjustifiably rejected the expert report proposed and
paid for by the applicants. It further considered an expert
accountant’s report necessary.
- During
the retrial, seventeen hearings were held before the Regional Court,
none of which was adjourned as a result of requests by the
applicants.
- On
9 December 2002 the Bucharest Regional Court upheld the applicants’
appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court and increased
the amount of damages. The court also held that the applicants had
renounced their claim for a vehicle adapted to their disability.
- The
applicants appealed again. During the hearing of 17 April 2003, they
maintained before the Bucharest Court of Appeal that they had not
renounced the claim in relation to the vehicle.
- On
24 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal gave a final decision
rejecting as unfounded the applicants’ subsequent appeal on the
grounds that their allegations were not supported by the evidence.
- On
12 May 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in a final
decision, rejected the applicants’ objection to the execution
of the judgment of 9 December 2002. The court considered that the
applicants’ request to increase the amount of damages was of a
civil nature and could not be raised as an objection to the execution
of the judgment.
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...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 17 October 1994 at the
latest for the first applicant and on 16 February 1995 for the second
applicant, and ended on 24 April 2003. The period between the final
decision of 16 February 2000 and the annulment (recurs în
anulare) is not taken into account as no proceedings were
pending. It thus lasted
seven years, one month and seventeen days
for the first applicant and
six years, nine months and
eighteen days for the second applicant, for
three levels of
jurisdiction.
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
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).
- 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.
Moreover, the dispute in the present case was related to compensation
for damage to health. The Court is of the opinion that the nature of
the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the
domestic courts (see,
mutatis mutandis, Marchenko v.
Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40,
5 October 2006).
- 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 3 of inhuman and degrading
treatment as they had no pecuniary resources to afford an appropriate
medical treatment, that the long proceedings had caused them stress
and tension and that the low amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded
had not adequately reflected the suffering they had experienced.
- The
applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 that both the
proceedings and the outcome had been unfair, that the domestic courts
had neither been independent nor impartial, that they had failed to
assess the facts correctly, and had misinterpreted the domestic law.
They also complained of the quantum of damages and the first
applicant alleged that he had no access to a court because his
request for a vehicle adapted to his needs, although reiterated in an
appeal, had not been considered by the courts.
- The
applicants complained under Article 14 of the Convention and Article
1 § 1 of Protocol No. 12 that they had been discriminated
against with respect to damages because of their wealth and their
social status.
- Having
carefully considered the applicants’ submissions in the light
of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, 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 part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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 in respect of pecuniary damage 13,475 euros (EUR)
and EUR 2,060 respectively, and a monthly sum of EUR 310 and EUR 116
respectively to commence on 1 June 1996 and pending their recovery,
representing losses relating to apiculture and gardening, a vehicle
adapted to their needs, lost salaries and living expenses incurred as
a consequence of the accident. They also claimed EUR 20,000, EUR
10,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims on the grounds that no causal link
between the damage sought and the alleged
length-of-proceedings
violation could be found. Further, they considered that a finding of
a violation would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction
for any non-pecuniary damage the applicants may have suffered. In any
event, they considered that the amount claimed in that respect was
too high.
- 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 in respect of the violation found. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards them jointly a total sum of EUR 2,600
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants did not claim costs and expenses. Accordingly, there is no
call to make an award under this head.
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 the applicants jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 2,600 (two thousand six hundred 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 30 September 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
