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!

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 1867/06
Maria MOLDOVAN
against Romania
lodged on 30 December 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Maria Moldovan, is a Romanian national who was born on an unspecified date and lives in Deva.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against certain third parties seeking the annulment of a will and a maintenance agreement signed by her deceased grandfather in favour of the third parties. She argued that the third parties had forged her grandfather’s signature on the aforementioned documents.

By a judgment of 2 October 2003 the Hateg District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that she had not submitted any evidence supporting her allegations. The applicant appealed against the judgment and motioned the court to order a handwriting analysis of her grandfather’s alleged signatures on the above-mentioned documents.

On 4 June 2004 the Cluj Forensic Laboratory carried out a handwriting analysis of the contested signatures. It concluded, based on other documents signed by the applicant’s grandfather, that in spite of some discrepancies between the signatures they all belonged to him.

On 18 October 2004 the applicant informed the Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal that she was unable to attend a hearing scheduled for 20 October 2004 because of her poor state of health and requested that the proceedings continue in absentia. In addition, she raised several objections to the handwriting analysis report. Relying on expert literature, she argued that the discrepancies identified in the expert report in respect of her grandfather’s signatures, taken in conjunction with the fact that he had been illiterate, should have lead the expert to conclude that the signatures in question were forged.

On 20 October 2004 the appellate court acknowledged the applicant’s motion for the proceedings to continue in absentia. It did not mention or examine the objections raised by her to the handwriting analysis report. By a judgment delivered on the same date, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that according to the handwriting analysis report the signatures on the documents belonged to her grandfather. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment and reiterated her objections to the handwriting analysis report.

By a final judgment of 8 July 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the grounds that she had failed to object to the handwriting analysis report before the Court of Appeal and that she had therefore agreed with the expert’s findings.

COMPLAINTS

1.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that she did not have a fair hearing before the domestic courts inasmuch as the said courts dismissed her action by relying on the incorrect findings that she had failed to object to the handwriting analysis report before the Court of Appeal and that she had therefore agreed with the expert’s findings.

2.  Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the dismissal by the domestic courts of her action against certain third parties breached her property rights in so far as she was unable to recover part of her grandfather’s inheritance that she claims she was entitled to.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, was the applicant afforded a reasonable opportunity to present her case before the domestic courts – including submissions, arguments and evidence – under conditions that did not place her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis her opponents?