[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF S.C. COMPRIMEX S.A. v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 32228/02)
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 S.C. Comprimex S.A. v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Egbert
Myjer,
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. 32228/02) against Romania
lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Romanian company, S.C. Comprimex S.A. (“the applicant”),
on
21 January 2002.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Francisc Andras, its
managing director. The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu
Radu.
- On
23 May 2007 the
President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was 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
applicant is a joint stock company based in Braşov.
- On
25 August 1994 the applicant brought proceedings against the
Transilvania University of Braşov
seeking payment by the latter of an amount of money allegedly
resulting from a contract they had entered into, which concerned
repairs that had to be carried out by the applicant to one of the
university's halls of residence.
- On
27 October 1995 the Braşov Regional
Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the action as
premature, considering that the contract had not come to an end.
- On
8 February 1996 the Braşov Court of
Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal by the
applicant, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back to
the Regional Court for fresh examination. It considered that the
first-instance court had come to a decision on the basis of an
exception that was inapplicable.
- During
the retrial, of the nine hearings held between 25 June 1996 and 4
February 1998, two were adjourned at the applicant's request. This
included the hearing of 25 June 1996 when it requested an adjournment
to allow the Supreme Court of Justice to decide on its demand to
transfer the case to another court, the hearing being fixed for 16
July 1996. The Regional Court adjourned the hearings until 29 October
1996.
According
to the applicant, on 16 July 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice
dismissed its request.
- On
11 February 1998 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's action
as being groundless.
- On
25 June 1998 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the
applicant.
- On
18 March 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed by a final
decision an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the
previous judgment and remitted the case to the court of appeal for
fresh consideration. It found that one of the judges had also taken
part in the proceedings when the first-instance court had given the
judgment of 27 October 1995.
- During
the retrial, on 15 November 1999 the applicant informed the Court of
Appeal that it had made a request before the Supreme Court of Justice
to have the case transferred to another court, the hearing being
fixed for 17 February 2000. The Court of Appeal decided to stay the
proceedings and sent the file to the archives. The hearings were
resumed on
21 April 2000.
The
Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant's request.
- On
3 May 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant
against the judgment of 11 February 1998, on the grounds that the
applicant's claims had not been proved.
- On
22 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice by a final decision
rejected as groundless an appeal on points of law by the applicant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant 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 25 August 1994 and
ended on 22 June 2001. It thus lasted six years, nine months and
twenty-eight days for three levels of jurisdiction. Seven courts
examined the case during this period.
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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant 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).
Moreover,
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. Moreover, this deficiency is imputable to the
authorities and not the applicants (see Wierciszewska v. Poland,
no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Matica
v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November
2006).
- 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.
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
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the outcome was
unfair, that the domestic courts had failed to assess the facts
correctly, had misinterpreted the domestic law, had not been
independent and impartial and had not considered the case on the
merits. It also relied on Articles 7, 14 and 17 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- Having
carefully considered the applicant's 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
applicant claimed 1,210,910 United States Dollars (USD) in respect of
pecuniary damage. On 15 February 2008 it claimed 20,403,573 euros
(EUR) under that head. It also claimed USD 1,000,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- 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 applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage (see Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal [GC],
no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000 IV). Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards it EUR 1,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 10,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
in the domestic courts and before the Court. It did not provide any
supporting documents.
- The
Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
- The
Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the Convention it will
reimburse only the costs and expenses that are shown to have been
actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum
(see Arvelakis v. Greece, no. 41354/98, § 34,
12 April 2001). Furthermore, Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules
of Court provides that itemised particulars of any claim made under
Article 41 of the Convention must be submitted, together with the
relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court
may reject the claim in whole or in part.
- The
Court notes that the applicant did not submit any supporting
documents or particulars to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, the
Court does not award any sum 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 applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,200 (one
thousand two 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 applicant's 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
