British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
GLASBERG AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA - 29292/02 [2011] ECHR 1079 (5 July 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1079.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 1079
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF GLASBERG AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications
nos. 29292/02, 32538/05, 24265/07 and 21985/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 July
2011
This
judgment is final but it
may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Glasberg and Others v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ján
Šikuta,
President,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 June 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in four applications
(nos. 29292/02, 32538/05, 24265/07 and 21985/08)
against Romania lodged
with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by five Romanian nationals, Sari-Charlotte Glasberg, Gheorghe Mihai,
Constantin Chirilă, S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L. and
Ion Bălaşa, (“the applicants”). The
particulars of each applicant are indicated in the appended table.
The applicant in application no. 29292/02 has also the German
nationality; the German Government did not exercise their right to
intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). The Romanian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On
15 September, 9 November, 14 October
2009 and 8 October 2008 respectively, the
President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the
applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the
merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility
(former Article 29 § 3). In accordance with
Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent Government, the
applications were assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
details as to the subject matter of the cases, reference dates for
the start and end of the proceedings and the length of the
proceedings are set out in the table appended hereto.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
Having
regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court
finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants 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... ”
The
Government expressed the opposite view.
In
applications nos. 29292/02 and 24265/07, in which the proceedings
started before Romania’s ratification of the Convention, the
period to be taken into consideration began only on 20 June 1994,
when the recognition by Romania of the right of individual petition
took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time
that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings at the time.
A. Admissibility
1. Preliminary objections
a) Application no. 24265/07
The
Government argued that the applicant lodged the application on
19 July 2007, namely more than six months from the date of the
final decision of 8 December 2006.
The
applicant contested this argument.
The
Court notes that the first letter of the applicant was sent on
24 April 2007. Therefore, his complaint was raised within the
six month time limit set forth under Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention.
The
Government also invoked the fact that the applicant did not complain
expressly or in substance about the length of the proceedings.
The
Court notes that in the application form, the applicant did express
his discontent regarding the fact that he had been “dragged”
in courts since 1992, making a detailed summary of the proceedings
before the domestic courts. The Court is therefore satisfied that the
applicant raised this complaint in substance.
b) Application no. 21985/08
The
Government considered that the first applicant (S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L.)
could not stand before the Court as victim, as the company did no
longer have legal capacity. As for the second applicant, the
Government asked the Court to dismiss his complaint due to the fact
that he was not a party to the domestic proceedings.
The
applicants contested these arguments.
The
Court notes that the first applicant (S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L.)
had legal capacity at the time when the facts occurred and also at
the time when the application was lodged before the Court.
Furthermore, the applicants informed the Court that the company was
undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
Regarding
the second applicant, the Court notes that he only took part in the
domestic proceedings as the representative of the company and without
bringing any personal claims. Therefore, in light of the Court’s
case-law, he cannot pretend to be a victim in respect of alleged
violations directly affecting the company (Agrotexim and Others v.
Greece, 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330 A). The Court
shall therefore accept the Government’s objection and
consequently dismiss the complaint in respect of this applicant.
2. Conclusion
The
Court notes that, with the exception of the second applicant in
application no. 21985/08, the other applicants’ complaints
regarding the excessive length of the proceedings are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any
other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
Government argued that the applicants had contributed to the delays
in the proceedings.
The
applicants contested this argument.
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 (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
cases (see Frydlender, cited above, Abramiuc v. Romania,
no. 37411/02, § 130, 24 February 2009).
In
the present cases, having regard to the length of the proceedings as
mentioned in the appended table, and 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 particular, even if the applicants’
conduct was not beyond reproach, the Court considers that the
judicial authorities were responsible for most of the delays (see,
mutatis mutandis, Beaumartin v. France, 24 November
1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-B). In the light of its case-law on
the subject, the Court considers that in these cases 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Referring
to Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained of
further aspects related to the above proceedings.
Having
considered the applicants’ submissions in the light of all the
material in its possession, the Court finds that, insofar 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 these complaints are manifestly-ill founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
IV. 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
applicants have submitted the following claims in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage:
|
No.
|
Application no.
|
Pecuniary damage
|
Non-pecuniary damage
|
|
1.
|
29292/02
|
EUR 408,000
|
EUR 2,000,000
|
|
2.
|
32538/05
|
EUR 15,000
|
EUR 95,000
|
|
3.
|
24265/07
|
EUR 24,000
|
EUR 20,000
|
|
4.
|
21985/08
|
EUR 86,869
|
EUR 10,000
|
The Government contested these claims.
The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects these claims.
On
the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage.
Ruling
on an equitable basis, it awards them the following amounts under
that head:
EUR 3,200 to the
applicant in application no. 29292/02;
EUR 2,000 to the
applicant in application no. 32538/05;
EUR 3,900 to the
applicant in application no. 24265/07;
EUR 1,600 to the
first applicant in application no. 21985/08.
B. Costs and expenses
With
the exception of the applicant in application no. 32538/05, the
applicants have submitted claims for costs and expenses. Regard being
had to the documents submitted and to its case-law, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the following sums covering costs
under all heads:
|
No.
|
Application no.
|
Amounts claimed
|
Amounts supported by documents
|
Amounts granted
|
|
1.
|
29292/02
|
EUR 40,851.11
|
EUR 8,419
|
EUR 200
|
|
2.
|
32538/05
|
No claims
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
3.
|
24265/07
|
EUR 2,000
|
RON 1,370
(EUR 333)
|
EUR 100
|
|
4.
|
21985/08
|
EUR 9,376
|
RON 6,053
(EUR 1,473)
|
EUR 200
|
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
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings inadmissible in respect of the second
applicant in application no. 21985/08;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible in respect of all the other
applicants;
Declares the remainder of the applications
inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following
amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be
converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant
in application no. 29292/02;
(ii) EUR
2,000 (two thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant
in application no. 32538/05;
(iii) EUR
3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage
and EUR 100 (one hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the
applicant in application no. 24265/07;
(iv) EUR
1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the first
applicant in application no. 21985/08.
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta
Deputy
Registrar President
Appendix
1
|
No.
|
Case no. and date of lodging
|
Applicant’s Details
|
Length of the proceedings
|
Subject Matter
|
|
1.
|
29292/02
18 July 2002
|
Sari-Charlotte
GLASBERG
Born in 1940 and residing in
Berlin, Germany
|
5
November 1993 (20 June 1994) -
7
October 2004
9
years and 4 months
Levels: 2 (before 3 courts)
|
Proceedings
regarding ownership over a previously nationalised immovable
property.
|
|
2.
|
32538/05
2 September 2005
|
Gheorghe
MIHAI
Born in 1947 and residing in
Bucharest
|
22
April 2003 - 10 April 2009
6
years
Levels: 2 (before 3 courts)
|
Proceedings
brought by the applicant against a third party seeking the
annulment of the decision to fire him.
|
|
3.
|
24265/07
24 April 2007
|
Constantin
CHIRILA
Born
in 1931 and residing in Vicovu de Sus, county of Suceava;
represented by Mr V. Schipor.
|
1 July
1992 (20 June 1994) -
8
December 2006
12
years and 6 months
Levels: 3
|
Action seeking ownership over
immovable property.
|
|
4.
|
21985/08
21 December 2003
|
S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L.,
a private company headquartered in Pitesti, represented by the
second applicant, Ion BALASA, born in 1941 and residing in
Prislopu Mare, county of Argeş.
|
8 May
1995 - 27 June 2003
8
years and 2 months
Levels: 3 (before 11 courts)
|
Action for tortuous liability
against public authorities.
|
