(Application no. 14466/02)
10 March 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 Martin v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Proceedings to overturn a decision of the association
On 12 February 2003 the applicant lodged a further appeal against the interlocutory decision and, considering that it could influence the trial, on 14 August 2003 she requested adjournment of the main proceedings. On 21 January 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice declared the applicant's appeal against the interlocutory decision inadmissible.
B. Proceedings for reinstatement
proceedings were also stayed between 6 October 2000 and
28 March 2003, when the applicant requested their adjournment pending investigations brought about by her criminal complaints against certain employees of the company.
On 13 June 2005 the County Court, by interlocutory decisions, granted three requests by judges to abstain from taking part in the proceedings and refused another such request. On 12 and 22 July 2005 and 4 May 2006 the court dismissed, by interlocutory decisions, requests by the applicant to challenge either individual judges or the whole section.
proceedings were also stayed between 18 August 2005 and
20 April 2006 at the applicant's request, following her demand that the judgment of 15 July 2004 be set aside.
On 13 February 2007 the court dismissed as groundless the applicant's request for the final decision to be set aside. On 21 November 2007 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, by a final decision, declared a further appeal by the applicant inadmissible.
C. Proceedings to recover salary
That judgment became final on 24 August 2001.
D. Criminal proceedings
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government did not express an opinion in respect of the alleged unreasonable length of the proceedings to overturn a decision of the general assembly.
period to be taken into consideration in respect of the proceedings
for annulment of the decision of the general assembly began on
9 December 1998 and ended on 12 May 2006. It thus lasted seven years, five months and four days for three levels of jurisdiction.
These delays amounted to approximately four years and nine months, the total length of the proceedings being seven years and eight months.
These delays amounted to around three years and nine months, the total length of the proceedings being seven years and five months.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 March 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall