FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF DRAGOMIR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 23864/06 and 5 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

6 October 2016

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Dragomir and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
	Egidijus Kūris,
	Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2.  The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
Article I.	I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Article II.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
7.  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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8.  In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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.
10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Article III.	III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11.  Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12.  The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Article IV.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13.  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.”
14.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Vlad and Others v. Romania, cited above, §§ 166-173), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,
1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı	Vincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy Registrar	President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
No.	Application no. 
Date of introduction	Applicant name
Date of birth
	Representative name and location	Start of proceedings	End of proceedings	Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)	
1.		23864/06
05/06/2006	Dragoș
DRAGOMIR
09/12/1972	Sergiu Andon
Bucharest	24/07/1998
	08/12/2005
	7 years
and 4 months

3 levels of jurisdiction

	900	
2.		80668/13
13/12/2013	Maria-Mirona FARCAŞI
15/01/1981	Mihaela -Cristina Mîţu
Bucharest	02/06/2004
	14/06/2013
	9 years

3 levels of jurisdiction

	1,200	
3.		1879/14
24/12/2013	Ileana-Andreea HUIU
21/08/1973	Gheorghe Dinu
Târgoviște	21/02/2007
	26/06/2013
	6 years
and 4 months

3 levels of jurisdiction
	500	
4.		35028/14
08/05/2014	Lazăr Dorin MAIOR
04/03/1960	Gheorghiță Mateuț
Arad	27/12/2006
	11/11/2013
	6 years
and 10 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

	1,200	
5.		40579/14
23/05/2014	Elvis ION
26/03/1982	Stan Daniel Lungu
Bucharest	09/03/2006
	03/12/2013
	7 years
and 8 months

3 levels of jurisdiction

	900	
6.		53647/14
25/07/2014	Camelia MARINOIU
03/01/1967	Gheorghiță Mateuț
Arad	11/05/2005
	31/01/2014
	8 years
and 8 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

	1,800