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
FLORIN IONESCU v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 24916/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 May
2011
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 Florin Ionescu v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Ján
Šikuta,
Luis
López Guerra,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 May 2011
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 24916/05) 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 German national, Mr Florin Ionescu (“the
applicant”), on 5 July 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr G. Ionescu, a lawyer practising in
Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
- The
applicant alleged that his right of access to court had been denied,
as the prosecutors and the criminal courts had made their decisions
with respect to all the offences mentioned in his criminal complaint,
except for the offence of fraud. This had as a consequence the
dismissal of his civil claims. He also alleged that he did not
benefit from a trial within a reasonable time, as the criminal
proceedings initiated by him had lasted more than eight years.
- On
23 January 2008 the President of the Third Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Romanian Government and the German
Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 §
3).
- The
German Government did not express an intention to intervene in the
proceedings.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The general context
- The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1947, who
lives in Moosthenning, Germany.
- In
1993, the applicant and M.G., a Romanian citizen, decided to set up a
commercial company.
- The
envisaged company was registered in Romania on 9 November 1993
under the name Fivarog Impex SRL (hereinafter called “the
company”).
- In
September 1993, the two associates bought in Germany a truck and
merchandise on behalf of the company to be registered. The vehicles
and the merchandise were registered on the name of a company
belonging to M.G (“company P.”) and should have been
registered in the accounting books of the company after its setting
up.
- In
March 1994, the applicant bought a trailer for the company that was
registered by M.G. in the name of his company P.
- M.G.
used both vehicles to carry out the activity of company P. and did
not register the counter value of the rendered transport services in
any accounting books.
- In
1995, the applicant transferred the majority of his shares to M.G.,
who became the main shareholder and administrator of the company. By
an act under private signature, the latter undertook the
obligation to deliver to the applicant the truck and the trailer.
B. The criminal proceedings against M.G.
- In
13 August 1996, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against
M.G., accusing him of forgery, use of forged items, fraud, fraudulent
management of the company and selling goods placed under judicial
seizure. He maintained that M.G. used the money obtained by
commercial operations performed on behalf of the company for his
personal use, without registering them in the accounting books of the
company. He added that the truck and the trailer bought for the
company and mostly paid for by him were never registered in the name
of the company and were used by the company P., which belonged to
M.G.
- On
11 March 1998, the police opened a criminal investigation against the
applicant and M.G., on suspicion of several offences of an economic
nature, namely fraud, fraudulent management of the company and
intellectual forgery related to the accounting books of the company.
- The
applicant joined a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings,
asking for the return of the trailer and the truck and damages. He
evaluated the damages only on 25 March 1998, after an accounting
report had been prepared.
- On
5 March 1999, the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court
decided to terminate the investigation against the applicant and M.G.
- The
applicant lodged a complaint against this decision, which was allowed
by the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal on
26 August 1999. He decided to continue the criminal
investigation against M.G.
- By
a bill of indictment of 17 October 2001 the prosecutor attached to
the Buftea District Court accused M.G. of fraudulent management,
smuggling and fiscal evasion. In respect of the offences of use of
forged documents and fraud, the prosecutor decided to terminate the
investigation. The prosecutor also decided to terminate the
investigation related to all the offences of which the applicant was
accused.
- By
a judgment of 26 March 2002, the Buftea District Court convicted M.G.
of smuggling, fraudulent management and fiscal evasion, and sentenced
him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, and placed him on
probation. He was also ordered to award pecuniary damages to
the company, while the applicant’s request for damages was
dismissed on the ground that there was no causal link between the
prejudice stated and the offences committed by M.G.
- M.G.
and the applicant lodged an appeal. The applicant argued, inter
alia, that the court was wrong when deciding to dismiss his
request for damages. He added that neither the prosecutor nor the
court of first instance had analysed or decided on the alleged fraud
whose victim he was.
- By
a decision rendered on 6 December 2002, the Bucharest County Court
upheld the judgment of Buftea District Court without providing
reasons for the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal.
- On
17 April 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on
points of law filed by M.G., on the ground that the defendant’s
right to defence had been infringed, as neither he nor his lawyer had
been present at the previous hearing. It also allowed the appeal on
points of law lodged by the applicant on the ground that the
Bucharest County Court did not provide any reason for dismissing his
appeal. It quashed the decision of 6 December 2002 and
remitted the file to the Bucharest County Court.
- On
26 April 2004, the Bucharest County Court partially allowed the
appeal lodged by M.G., holding that in respect of fiscal evasion and
fraudulent management the criminal liability had become
statute-barred. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal as
unfounded.
- The
applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds as
those raised before the county court. By a final decision rendered on
8 June 2004, the Bucharest Court of Appeal partially allowed the
appeal in respect of the request for damages, on the ground that the
county court had not provided reasons for dismissing it.
- By
a decision rendered on 17 December 2004, the county court dismissed
the applicant’s appeal again, on the ground that the prejudice
experienced by the applicant was not connected with the offences in
the charges against M.G. It pointed out that the applicant had
the opportunity to bring a separate civil action for damages in which
the contractual liability of M.G might be established.
- By
a final decision rendered on 4 March 2005, the Bucharest Court of
Appeal upheld the decision of the county court dismissing the
applicant’s appeal on points of law.
C. The civil proceedings against M.G.
- On
6 February 1996, the applicant lodged a civil action against M.G.
seeking recognition of his property right in respect of the truck and
trailer bought in 1993 and 1994 respectively.
- By
a separate action, lodged on the same day, he requested the judicial
seizure of the vehicles.
- On
1st March 1996 the Bucharest District Court ordered the
seizure of the vehicles and decided to join the two actions in a
single file.
- Despite
the seizure order on the vehicles, on 29 February 1996 M.G. sold them
to a third party. Therefore, on 5 May 1996 the applicant added a new
claim to the joined action, namely for the cancellation of the
salepurchase agreement between M.G. and the third party.
- On
5 April 1996, the Bucharest District Court decided to hear separately
the action regarding the seizure of vehicles from the action
regarding the recognition of the ownership right over the vehicles
and the cancellation of the sale-purchase agreement.
- M.G.
lodged an appeal against the order of 1 March 1996 for the seizure of
the vehicles, dismissed by the Bucharest County Court on 5 June
1996.
- On
17 October 1996 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the action as
ill-founded. It held that from the analysis of the agreement’s
clauses concluded between the applicant and M.G. there had been no
transfer of ownership rights over the truck and trailer to the
applicant. Furthermore, it dismissed the applicant’s request
for the cancellation of the sale-purchase agreement concluded
between M.G. and the third party, on the ground that there were no
reasons for the cancellation.
- The
applicant lodged an appeal with the Bucharest County Court. The
applicant relied on the fact that the agreement interpreted by the
court of first instance as a loan agreement had in fact three
different clauses, namely the first one was indeed a loan agreement,
the second allowed M.G. to use the vehicles until the date of
reimbursement of the loan (understood as a favour granted to M.G. for
obtaining the money for reimbursement of the loan) and the third one
provided for the transfer of ownership title over the vehicles to him
on the date of reimbursement of the loan.
- On
20 January 1998 the proceedings were stayed at the request of the
applicant until the delivery of a final decision in the criminal
proceedings, to which the civil proceedings were closely related.
- On
28 September 1999 the civil proceedings were reopened to determine
whether the reason for staying them persisted. The applicant was
present at the hearings. The hearings were adjourned until 9 November
1999, in order for the parties to be able to prove that the criminal
proceedings were still pending.
- On
9 November 1999, the Bucharest County Court decided to maintain the
suspension of the case on the same legal basis, namely Article 244
point 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP).
- On
30 November 2000 the proceedings were reopened in order to determine
whether the criminal proceedings had been finalised. The parties were
summoned for 23 January 2001. Noting the applicant’s absence,
the court adjourned the hearings until 20 February 2001.
- On
20 February 2001, both parties were absent. Therefore, the Court
suspended the civil proceedings on another legal ground, that of the
absence of the parties, under Article 244 point 2 of the CCP.
- On
24 February 2002, the Bucharest County Court reopened the civil
proceedings. The applicant was again summoned at the two addresses
indicated by him in the file.
- On
the ground of the parties’ lack of interest in the appeal,
indicated by their absence from the hearing without submitting any
request for the adjournment of the case, the court decided to
extinguish (a constatat perimarea) the applicant’s
appeal on 2 April 2002. From the analysis of the documents submitted
by the parties it seems that the applicant did not lodge any appeal
against the decision.
- On
4 May 2005, the applicant requested the reopening of the civil
proceedings before the Bucharest District Court on the ground that
the criminal proceedings had been completed on 4 March 2005.
- On
11 July 2005, the applicant was informed about the decision of 24
February 2002 to dismiss his civil action.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Code of Criminal Procedure
- The
provisions of Articles 19 and 20 of the Criminal Code of Procedure
regarding the joining of a civil action to criminal proceedings are
mentioned in Forum Maritime S.A. v. Romania, nos. 63610/00 and
38692/05, §§ 64 and 65, 4 October 2007
B. Code of Civil Procedure
- Article
242 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Government Order
no. 59/2001, provides that a court examining a civil action can
suspend the proceedings:
“1. if all the parties ask for the
suspension;
2. if none of the parties are present at the
hearing”.
- Article
244 of the same code provides for another reason for suspending the
civil proceedings:
“...2. if criminal proceedings have
been instituted in relation to a crime, the determination of which is
decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained
that he had been denied his right of access to court and also of
excessive length of the proceedings.
- Article
6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, reads as
follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing
within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The right of access to court
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
1. The parties’ submissions
- The
applicant alleged that he was denied the right of access to court as
the prosecutors and the criminal courts gave decisions on all charges
in his criminal complaint except for the offence of fraud. This had
as a consequence the dismissal of his civil action joined to the
criminal proceedings.
- The
Government contended that the right of access to court is not
absolute, mentioning in this respect the judgements pronounced by the
Court in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, §
38, Series A no. 18), and Bellet v. France (4
December 1995, § 31, Series A no. 333 B).
They added that the domestic courts are the first to interpret
domestic legislation, making reference to the judgments pronounced in
Bulut v. Austria, (22 February 1996, § 26, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1996 II), and Tejedor García
v. Spain, (16 December 1997, § 31, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1997 VIII).
- With
regard to the present case, the Government averred that after an
individual has lodged a criminal complaint with the judicial
authorities, only they are competent to decide with respect to the
legal classification of the facts indicated in the complaint. They
added that after an analysis of the criminal complaint submitted by
the applicant, the bill of indictment and all the decisions rendered
by the domestic criminal courts in the instant case, it was clear
that the relevant bodies had made their decisions with respect to all
the matters set out in the initial complaint, although they had given
the facts a different legal classification.
- Moreover,
the Government contended that the civil action joined to the criminal
proceedings had been dismissed on the ground that the alleged damage
relied on by the applicant had no connection with the offences
retained in the charge against M.G. It also stressed that the
applicant had the opportunity to lodge a separate civil action in the
civil courts, and that he had done so.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
- Article
6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating
to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or
tribunal. The right of access to court in civil matters constitutes
one aspect of the “right to a court” embodied in Article
6 § 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey
judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2285,
§ 92; Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC],
no. 26083/94, § 50, ECHR 1999-I; and Golder
v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series
A, no. 18, p. 18, § 36).
- The
Convention does not confer any right, as such, to have third parties
prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence. To fall within the
scope of the Convention such right must be indissociable from the
victim’s exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in
domestic law (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §
70, ECHR 2004 I). Therefore, Article 6 applies to
proceedings involving civil-party complaints from the moment the
complainant is joined as a civil party, unless he or she has waived
the right to reparation in an unequivocal manner (see Gorou v. Greece
(no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 25, ECHR 2009 ).
- The
right of access to court secured by Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention is not absolute, but may be subject to limitations; these
are permitted by implication since the right of access by its very
nature calls for regulation by the State. In this respect, the
Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, although
the final decision as to the observance of the Convention’s
requirements rests with the Court. It must be satisfied that the
limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the
individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence
of the right is impaired (see Waite and Kennedy, cited above,
§ 59).
- Furthermore,
the Court recalls that it is not its task to substitute itself for
the domestic jurisdictions. It is primarily for the national
authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of
interpretation of domestic legislation (see, inter alia,
Pérez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain, 28 October 1998,
§ 43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 VIII).
(b) Application of these principles in the
present case
- The
Court notes that the applicant complained that neither the prosecutor
nor the courts had decided in respect of the offence of fraud
mentioned in his criminal complaint and the civil action joined to
it.
- Once
a criminal complaint is referred to the judicial bodies, they have
the obligation to analyse all the matters mentioned in the complaint
but also the right to give a new legal classification to the facts.
Moreover, the Court reiterates that it is not its task to substitute
itself for the domestic judicial bodies in respect of the assessment
of the facts and their legal classification, based on their
interpretation of the domestic legislation.
- Analysing
the bill of indictment of 17 October 2001, the Court notes that the
prosecutor analysed all the matters referred to in the applicant’s
criminal complaint. With respect to the applicant’s allegation
that M.G. had used the company’s vehicles and money for
personal use, the prosecutor decided to analyse it under the
provisions of the Criminal Code concerning fraudulent management.
Moreover, the courts to which the complaint had been referred, after
an assessment of the facts on the basis of the evidence presented
before them, did not deem it necessary to expand their analysis to
other offences than those mentioned in the bill of indictment.
- Therefore,
in the light of the above mentioned the Court considers that the
investigating body as well as the domestic courts have analysed all
matters set out by the applicant in his criminal complaint.
- Moreover,
the Court notes that the domestic courts also analysed the
applicant’s civil complaint and indicated their reasons for
dismissing it. Thus, the appeal court which rendered the final
decision stressed that the civil litigation between the applicant and
M.G. was of a mainly contractual nature, and suggested that the
applicant recover his damages by lodging a separate civil action.
- The
Court reiterates that in other cases in which the domestic courts did
not analyse the civil complaint on the ground of the inadmissibility
of the criminal complaint to which it was joined (see Moldovan v.
Romania (no. 2), nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, §§
119-122, ECHR 2005 VII (extracts), and Forum Maritime S.A.,
cited above, § 91), it stressed the importance of the
existence of other effective remedies for the civil claims. If such
remedies existed, it did not find a violation of the right of access
to court (see also Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October
1998, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1998 VIII, and Ernst and Others v. Belgium,
no. 33400/96, §§ 5355, 15 July 2003).
- In
the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant had lodged a
separate civil action even before he lodged the criminal complaint.
It had been analysed on the merits by the first-instance court, which
had dismissed it as illfounded. On 20 January 1998 the appeal
lodged by the applicant was suspended at his request until the
delivery of a final decision in the criminal proceedings. On 2
April 2002 the appeal was dismissed due to the applicant’s lack
of response to repeated summons by the court (see § 40 in the
facts section). Thus, although he had repeatedly been summoned to the
addresses indicated to the court, he was absent when the appeal court
reopened the civil proceedings. Furthermore, the Court also notes
that the applicant did not lodge any appeal against the decision
of 2 April 2002.
- The
Court considers that the separate civil action represented an
effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s civil claims.
The negligence of the applicant in periodically checking the status
of the civil proceedings and in indicating another address to the
court in case of change is not imputable to the domestic courts.
Moreover, he did not exhaust domestic remedies, since he did not
challenge the decision which dismissed his appeal
- In
these circumstances, it cannot be said that he was denied access to
court or deprived of a fair hearing in the determination of his civil
rights. Thus there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in this respect.
The length of the proceedings
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
1. The parties’ submissions
- The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had
been excessive. He contended that the proceedings had lasted more
than eight years at three levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Government submitted that there had been no periods of inactivity
attributable to the authorities and that the case was rather complex.
They maintained that the applicant had joined his civil complaint to
the criminal proceedings only on 25 March 1998. Therefore, the period
to be taken into consideration began on 25 March 1998 and ended on
4 March 2005. It thus lasted almost seven years (less
twenty-one days).
- 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 (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and
Foley v. the United Kingdom, no. 39197/98, § 36,
22 October 2002).
- The
Court does not agree with the Government’s submissions,
according to which the civil action was joined to the criminal
proceedings only on 25 March 1998. The Court notes that the applicant
requested compensation for damages in his initial complaint lodged on
13 August 1996, but mentioned the exact amount only on 25 March
1998 after an expert report had been produced. Therefore, it
considers that the period to be taken into consideration began on 13
August 1996 and ended on 4 March 2005. It thus lasted almost nine
years at three levels of jurisdiction.
- In
particular, the Court notes that the bill of indictment was drafted
and the file remitted to the court only on 17 October 2001,
approximately five years after the criminal complaint had been lodged
by the applicant. Moreover, the Court notes that on 17 April 2001 and
8 June 2004 respectively the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed
appeals on points of law and quashed the decisions rendered on appeal
and remitted the file to the Bucharest County Court for a fresh
examination.
- 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 to the applicants
(see Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2
November 2006).
- 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 Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania, nos.
77517/01 and 77722/01, § 26, ECHR 2005-VIII, and Soare
v. Romania, no. 72439/01, § 29, 16 June 2009).
- 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. 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
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed 176,813.31 euros
(EUR), representing the value of the truck, the trailer, the
merchandise and the dividends to which he was entitled for the years
199396. He claimed EUR 100,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government stressed that the present application had been
communicated to them only in respect of the complaint raised under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and no complaint has been
raised under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. They also
argued that the applicant’s claims were unfounded, as they were
not supported by evidence. Therefore, they asked the Court to reject
the claim for compensation for pecuniary damage. With regard to
non-pecuniary damage, they submitted that a judgment finding that
there had been a violation of the Convention would in itself
constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
- As
to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers it likely that the
applicant suffered frustration on account of the excessive length of
proceedings.
- Ruling
on an equitable basis, the Court considers that the applicant should
be awarded EUR 2,400 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed 98,250 Romanian lei (RON) (equivalent to EUR
27,832.86) for costs and expenses incurred, as follows: RON 2,642 for
fees paid to his lawyers, RON 1,000 for fees paid to the expert,
RON 922.25 for fees paid for translation of the documents
submitted to the Court and the rest of the amount for the expenses
incurred when he travelled from Germany to Romania in order to attend
the hearings in the period 1996-2005. He submitted invoices and
contracts for legal representation in this respect.
- The
Government contested the claim for the fees paid to the lawyers on
the ground that the applicant had not submitted invoices related to
all contracts for legal representation. Furthermore, they stressed
that the applicant’s presence in Romania to attend the hearings
was not necessary, taking into account that he was represented by his
lawyers.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of RON 3,074.25 (equivalent
to EUR 750) for costs and expenses incurred 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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the access to a
court;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the length of proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of
the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,400 (two
thousand four hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and
EUR 750 (seven hundred and fifty euros) in respect of costs
and expenses;
(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 24 May 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Section
Registrar President
