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 MARINICĂ
TIŢIAN POPOVICI v.
ROMANIA
(Application
no. 34071/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 October
2009
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 Marinică
Tiţian
Popovici v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Stanley Naismith, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 34071/06) 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 national, Mr Marinică
Tiţian Popovici (“the
applicant”), on
25 July 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Viorel Paşca,
a lawyer practising in Timişoara. The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
- On
7 November 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 was born in 1954 and lives in Nădrag.
- In
1993 the public prosecutor initiated a criminal action against the
applicant for homicide and grievous bodily harm. On 14 September 1993
he was placed in pre-trial detention, where he remained until 25
October 1994. On 7 May 1997 the Timiş
County Court (“the County Court”) acquitted the
applicant, finding that he had not committed the crimes concerned.
That judgment became final on 30 November 1999.
- On
2 November 2000 the applicant lodged an action for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary compensation for illegal detention.
- On
16 February 2001 the County Court dismissed the request because the
applicant had not paid a deposit of 5 % of the amount claimed, as
provided for by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 53/2000.
- On
26 April 2001 the Timişoara Court of
Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal by the
applicant, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for a
fresh examination. The court held that the above-mentioned ordinance
applied only to violations of non-pecuniary rights committed through
the press.
- On
30 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an appeal by
the authorities and upheld that ruling.
- After
the retrial, on 8 March 2002 the County Court made awards in respect
of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- On
15 May 2002 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicant
and awarded the whole amount claimed by him for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- On
31 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld an appeal on
points of law by the authorities, quashed the two previous judgments
and sent the case back for fresh consideration. It reiterated that a
claimant needs to provide proof of damage, but that judges are also
obliged to avoid investigative errors, if necessary by ordering
certain evidence to be produced even if the parties refuse. The lower
courts had estimated the damage without taking into account that
damage must be demonstrable and uncompensated and without giving
reasons.
- On
25 June 2003 the case was registered with the County Court. The court
questioned the applicant, heard a witness, requested information from
different institutions, and ordered two expert reports.
- After
the fresh examination, on 6 April 2004 the County Court awarded the
applicant 54,476,856 old Romanian lei (ROL) in respect of pecuniary
damage and ROL 300,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded
costs and expenses.
- On
16 July 2004 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicant
and increased the amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
parties appealed on points of law. On 25 August 2004 the High Court
of Cassation and Justice received the case file from the Court of
Appeal and fixed the first hearing for 9 February 2006.
- On
17 February 2006 the High Court, in a final decision, upheld the
appeal by the applicant and awarded him the full amount of
ROL 900,000,000 claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as
well as ROL 53,120,000 for costs and expenses.
On 19
May 2006 it sent the case file back to the Court of Appeal.
- On 30 June 2006 that judgment was endorsed with a writ
of execution. On 3 August 2006 the applicant requested the Ministry
of Public Finance to pay the above-mentioned amounts. After securing
the official authorisations, the Ministry paid the debt on 14
November 2006.
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 ...”
A. Admissibility
- The
Court concludes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Nor is
it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
applicant argued that the period to be taken into consideration
should also include the period from delivery of the final judgment
until effective execution.
- The
Government submitted that the period to be taken into consideration
had terminated on 17 February 2006. They relied on the
case of
Silva Pontes v. Portugal (23 March 1994, §§ 30 and
33, Series A
no. 286 A), and submitted that in the instant
case the execution phase concerned only the payment of the amount
established by the final decision of 17 February 2006.
- The
Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
requires that all stages of legal proceedings for the “determination
of ... civil rights and obligations”, not excluding stages
subsequent to judgment on the merits, be resolved within a reasonable
time (see Robins v. the United Kingdom, 23 September
1997, § 28, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 V,
and Estima Jorge v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 35,
Reports 1998 II). Execution of a judgment given by any
court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the “trial”
for the purposes of Article 6 (see Hornsby v. Greece,
19
March 1997, § 40, Reports 1997 II). Consequently,
whether the length issue is raised in respect of a trial or
enforcement proceedings, the principles applicable are broadly
similar. The margin of tolerance as regards a delay in honouring a
judgment debt will depend on different factors, such as the
complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the applicant's own
behaviour and that of the competent authorities, and the amount and
nature of the
court award (see Gorokhov and Rusyayev v.
Russia, no. 38305/02, § 31, 17 March 2005).
- Therefore,
in the instant case, the Court will not confine its examination to
the first phase, before the courts, which ran from 2 November
2000 until 17 February 2006 (five years, three months and seventeen
days before three levels of jurisdiction), but will also consider the
period of almost nine months until the debt was paid.
2. Reasonableness of the length of proceedings
- 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,
the repeated remittal of cases for re-examination discloses a serious
deficiency in the judicial system, since it is usually ordered as a
result of errors committed by lower courts. 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.
Moreover, the dispute in the present case was related to compensation
for illegal detention. 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, Damian-Burueana and
Damian v. Romania, no. 6773/02, §
97, 26 May 2009).
- Although the Court does not consider the subject
matter of the case to be complex and the overall length of the
proceedings does not appear to be excessive, the Court observes that
the domestic courts twice quashed previous judgments owing to
procedural errors for which responsibility rested entirely with the
authorities. Moreover, the High Court of Cassation and Justice fixed
a first hearing in the case for about one year and five months after
receipt of the case file (see paragraph 16 above). No explanations
have been given by the Government in respect of this period of
inactivity. Nor have they explained the three-month period it took
the High Court to send the file back to the Court of Appeal for the
final judgment to be endorsed with a writ of execution (see
paragraphs 17-18 above).
- 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 also complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention
of the length of the proceedings. Before the communication of the
present application to the Government, he had raised a complaint
under Article 6 § 1 in respect of the non-enforcement of
the final decision of
17 February 2006.
- 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.
- 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 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested any causal link between the violation alleged
and the non-pecuniary damage claimed.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
EUR 1,000
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant 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 applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,000 (one
thousand 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 27 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
