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
DECISION
Application no.
24159/03
Constantin HAŢEGAN
against Romania
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
17 April 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Luis
López Guerra,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 9 July 2003,
Having
regard to the decision taken by the President of the Chamber
to appoint Mr Mihai Poalelungi to sit as ad hoc judge
(Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1
of the Rules of Court), as Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge
elected in respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28),
Having
regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and
the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Constantin Haţegan, is a Romanian national who was
born in 1952 and lives in Giurgiu. The applicant was granted leave to
represent himself and to use the Romanian language in the proceedings
before the Court (Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a)). The Romanian
Government (“the Government”) were represented
successively by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu,
and their co-Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
20 June 2006 a committee of three judges of the Court decided,
pursuant to Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention, to strike the
application out of the Court’s list of cases in accordance with
Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. On 14 November 2006,
following a request received from the applicant, the same committee
decided to restore the application to the Court’s list of cases
by virtue of Article 37 § 2 of the Convention.
The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant
- By
a prosecutor’s order of 30 July 2001 the applicant was detained
at the Sibiu Police Department pending trial on murder charges.
- By
a final judgment of 13 February 2003 the Court of Cassation convicted
the applicant of murder and sentenced him to sixteen years and six
months’ imprisonment on the basis of forensic, documentary and
testimonial evidence, including the testimony of S.E. and N.A.
- The
applicant remains in detention to date.
The applicant’s medical condition
- Between
30 July 2001 and 22 November 2010 the applicant’s medical
condition was reviewed regularly by prison and civil hospitals and he
received treatment for, inter alia, an antisocial personality
disorder, epilepsy, syphilis, scabies, repeated headaches, diabetes,
stomatological problems, hernia, obstructive chronic bronchitis,
tuberculosis, arterial hypertension, varicose veins in his feet,
chronic gastritis, and an old fracture of the left tibia following a
gunshot wound received before 2001. It was recommended that he follow
a diet for the chronic gastritis and diabetes, and avoid cold, damp
and infections, and extended orthostatism. None of the medical
reports produced during this period mentioned any injuries on the
applicant’s body.
The conditions of detention
- In
his letters of 14 October 2005 and 7 April 2008 concerning Jilava
Prison, and in his letter of 2 August 2010 regarding Giurgiu Prison,
the applicant stated that the conditions of detention in those
penitentiaries amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because
the two prisons were overcrowded and infested with parasites, the
food and the general hygiene conditions were poor, he was refused a
special diet for his diabetes, and he did not have access to
appropriate bathroom or washing facilities.
Proceedings instituted by the applicant before the domestic
authorities
- By
a final judgment of 18 August 2004 the Arad County Court dismissed
the applicant’s action against the Arad Prison authorities for
an injunction allowing him to access his medical file, on the ground
that he had received a complete copy of his medical file, from which
none of the documents had been missing.
- By
a final judgment of 7 April 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the
applicant’s criminal complaint claiming abuse of power on the
part of I.B. – one of the prosecutors who had investigated the
murder charge against him – on the ground that no unlawful act
had been committed.
- By
a final judgment of 29 January 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed,
on the basis of documentary, testimonial and medical evidence, the
applicant’s action for ill-treatment against V.C., C.P. and
O.V., all employees of the Aiud Prison, on the ground that there was
no proof in the file attesting that the applicant had been
ill-treated by those individuals.
- By
a final judgment of 22 January 2009 the Court of Cassation dismissed
the applicant’s appeal against the order of the Bucharest
Prosecutor’s Office of 14 July 2008 refusing to indict the
masked guards in Jilava Prison who had allegedly beaten the applicant
on 17 February 2005, on the ground that it was time-barred.
- By
a final judgment of 14 December 2010 the Bucharest District Court
dismissed the applicant’s action to obtain an injunction in
order to be heard by a pensions commission. The court held that the
applicant had made fifty-two requests for copies of documents from
his prison file which had all been approved by the prison
authorities, and that he had been provided with the requested copies.
Moreover, the prison authorities had approved the applicant’s
requests to be heard by a pensions commission and to be provided with
the relevant information for his pension file. He had been taken
twice to the Ilfov and Bucharest District 5 Pension Rights Agencies
and he had been provided with the requested information.
Language used by the applicant in his letters to the Court
- In
the large majority of his letters addressed to the Court between 2003
and 2010 the applicant repeatedly referred to the Romanian President,
the Members of the Romanian Parliament, the prison guards in all the
prisons he was detained in, and the judges and prosecutors who
examined and investigated his cases and complaints, as “communists”,
“Mafia members”, “members of the former State
Police (securişti)”, “terrorists,
executioners, murderers and accomplices to ill-treatment”.
- In
his letters of 12 May and 21 August 2006, as well as on an
unspecified date in 2007, the applicant accused members of the
Registry, some of the judges and the Court of being “Mafia
members”, of “plotting together with the terrorist
Romanian State”, and of “being accomplices of members of
the former State Police (securişti)”.
- On
7 January 2011 the Government submitted their observations to the
Court and argued, inter alia, that the language used by the
applicant amounted to an abuse of the right of application and that
his application should be dismissed.
- In
his letter of 25 January 2011 the applicant stated, inter alia,
that he believed the Court had made a “genocide pact”
with the “murderers” who hid behind the name of leaders
of a rule-of-law State like Romania, because it had failed to examine
his case. Moreover, he claimed that members of the Registry and
certain judges had contributed to his physical and mental torture.
- In
a letter of 21 February 2011 containing the applicant’s
observations in reply to those of the Government, the applicant
stated that the “brutish” Romanian prison authorities had
attempted to lie to the Court by sending false information about his
detention conditions, and he asked the Court to inform the Government
Agent that he was a liar. Moreover, he submitted that:
“... by the false documents submitted to the Court
by the Government Agent ... the Ministry of Foreign Affairs falsified
the actual reality and lied ... the Government Agent is a liar.”
- In
a letter of 29 August 2011 the applicant called the Government Agents
“brutish” and “buffoons” and stated that,
together with the Romanian Government, they constantly misinformed
the Court.
- In
a letter of 1 September 2011 the Government reiterated their request
for the Court to dismiss the applicant’s case as an abuse of
the right of application. They stated that the applicant continued to
submit inappropriate letters using offensive language and making
defamatory allegations concerning the activities of the Romanian
authorities.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the
conditions of detention in Jilava and Giurgiu Prisons; the
ill-treatment he had been subjected to on 17 February 2005 by the
Jilava prison guards and the subsequent investigation; the
ill-treatment he had been subjected to in the Aiud, Gherla, Arad,
Rahova and Bîrcea Mare Prisons, at the Sibiu Police Department,
and by the prosecutor investigating his murder case; of a lack of
adequate medical treatment for his medical condition; and of being
shot in prison during the events of 1989.
- The
applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that after
being detained pending trial he had not been brought promptly before
a judge and that his detention after his unjustified conviction for
murder was unlawful.
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the
criminal proceedings brought against him for murder had been unfair
in so far as the domestic courts had wrongfully assessed the
statements of the witness S.E., as well as the evidence, and
misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions, and also that the
criminal proceedings instituted by him against the employees of the
Aiud Prison had been unfair.
- The
applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of lack of
access to his medical file in so far as part of the file had
allegedly been destroyed by the authorities, and of interference with
his right to correspondence and petition in so far as he had been
refused stamps and writing paper.
- The
applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention that the authorities had failed to assist him in obtaining
his early retirement rights; of a breach of his alleged property
rights to certain immovable property; and that several items
belonging to him had been stolen by the prosecutor investigating the
murder case against him.
THE LAW
- The
Government submitted in respect of the admissibility of the case that
in the letters addressed to the Court between 2006 and 2010 the
applicant had used offensive language and had made numerous
defamatory allegations and extremely serious accusations concerning
the Court’s activity, the Registry, the Romanian judicial and
domestic authorities, the judges of the Court, and the Government
Agent. They contended that this amounted to an abuse of the right of
application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.
Article
35 § 3, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“The Court shall declare inadmissible any
individual application submitted under Article 34 if it
considers that:
(a) ... [it is] an abuse of the right of individual
application.”
- The
applicant did not submit observations on this point.
- The
Court reiterates that, in principle, an application may only be
rejected as abusive under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention if it was knowingly based on untrue facts, even if it uses
offensive language (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no.
31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X, and Akdivar and Others v.
Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 53-54, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV). However, the persistent use of
insulting or provocative language by an applicant may be considered
an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35
§ 3 of the Convention (see Apinis v. Latvia (dec.), no.
46549/06, 20 September 2011; Řehák v. the Czech
Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Manoussos
v. the Czech Republic and Germany (dec.), no. 46468/99,
9 July 2002; Duringer and Others v. France (dec.),
nos. 61164/00 and 18589/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts); and
Stamoulakatos v. the United Kingdom, no. 27567/95,
Commission decision of 9 April 1997).
- The
Court observes in the present case that the majority of the
applicant’s letters addressed to the Court, to which the
respondent Government made reference, contained serious accusations
against State officials. Moreover, his letters questioned the
integrity of the Court and of the representatives of the Romanian
State before the Court and alleged that they acted in bad faith.
Having regard to the principles established in its case-law, the
Court considers that these statements were not simply a legitimate
exercise of the right to freedom of expression (compare Stamoulakatos
v. Greece, no. 32857/96, Commission decision of 3 December
1997).
- Furthermore,
the Court notes that in his observations on the merits of the
application of 21 February 2011, and in the letters subsequent
thereto, the applicant continued to use provocative or offensive
language with regard to the representatives of the Romanian State
before the Court.
- In
these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant’s
allegations are insulting and vexatious to a level which exceeds the
bounds of normal criticism, and amount to contempt of court. Such
conduct by the applicant – even supposing that his original
complaints were not deemed manifestly ill-founded – is contrary
to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for
in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It constitutes an abuse of
the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
(a) of the Convention.
- It follows that the present case must be rejected as
an abuse of the right of application, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
