European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
AGACHE v. ROMANIA - 35032/09 [2011] ECHR 1506 (4 October 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1506.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 1506
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF AGACHE v. ROMANIA
(Application
no. 35032/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October
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 Agache 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 Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 September 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 35032/09) 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 Romanian national, Mr.
Aurel Dionisie Agache (“the applicant”), on
3 December 2007.
The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
On
14 October 2009 the President of the Third Section decided to
give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided
to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its
admissibility (former Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Codlea.
During
events on 22 December 1998 the applicant’s father was murdered.
By a decision of 15 February 1999 the Bucharest County Court
convicted of murder five individuals, namely, F.O.D.K, P.O., H.D.,
R.A. and K.I., all of whom had dual Hungarian/Romanian citizenship,
and ordered the joint payment of damages of 50,000.000
Romanian Lei (ROL) to the applicant and other civil
parties. The decision became final on 26 March 2001 by a
decision of the Supreme Court.
On
26 July 2001 the applicant started enforcement proceedings through a
local bailiff.
In
2002, during the enforcement proceedings, the authorities found that
three of the debtors (P.O., F.O.D.K. and K.I.) had left Romania and
established their residence in Hungary.
On
28 March 2002 the International Relations Office within
the Romanian Ministry of Justice advised the applicant to
lodge, pursuant to Article 46 (b) of the Agreement of 1958
between the Popular Republic of Romania and the Popular Republic
of Hungary regarding judicial assistance in civil, family and
criminal trials (hereinafter “the Treaty”), a
request for international judicial assistance with
the first instance court that had ruled on the matter,
to be forwarded through the Ministry of Justice, which would also
provide a translation of the request and the accompanying documents.
On
2 December 2002 the applicant made an exequatur request and, pursuant
to Article 46 (b) of the Treaty, lodged it with the
Bucharest County Court. He also requested an update of the
amount of damages and its equivalent in Euros.
On
16 June 2003 the Bucharest County Court provided the update
requested. Consequently, the applicant filed another exequatur
request.
On
17 November 2003 the Bucharest County Court issued the exequatur
requested in relation to the final decision of 2001 with respect to
P.O., F.O.D.K. and K.I. and sent it to the Ministry of Justice.
However, since authorised translations of all the accompanying
documents were not enclosed with the request, in accordance with
Article 48 of the Treaty, the Ministry of Justice sent it
back to the Bucharest County Court requesting it to provide
the translations at the plaintiff’s expense.
On
12 February 2004 the Bucharest County Court sent the certified
translations into the Hungarian language of the required documents to
the Minister of Justice.
On
5 March 2004 the Minister of Justice sent to its
Hungarian counterpart the exequatur request relating to the
final court decision of 2001.
In
reply to requests by the applicant for information with respect to
the state of the proceedings, the Ministry of Justice informed him
on April 2005 that there had been no official answer from
the Hungarian Authorities but that they would pursue their
contact with the Hungarian authorities and keep him
informed accordingly.
In
2006 and 2007 the applicant renewed his request for information
regarding the state of the proceedings.
On
14 February 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that
they had requested information from their Hungarian counterpart.
On
12 April 2007 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice informed
the Romanian Ministry of Justice that no exequatur request
relating to a court decision from Romania had been registered in
their data base.
Following
a new request from the applicant regarding the state of
the proceedings, the Ministry of Justice communicated that
information to the applicant by a letter of 1 June 2007.
On
27 June 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that he
should lodge a new application.
On
24 July 2007 the applicant again requested an exequatur for
the judgment of 2001 from the Bucharest County Court.
On
11 September 2007 the Bucharest County Court issued a new exequatur
request based on the Hague Convention of 28 May 1970 on the
International Validity of Criminal Judgments, ratified by Romania
in 2000, and sent it to the Ministry of Justice.
On
16 October 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed
the Bucharest County Court that Hungary had not
ratified the said Convention.
The
applicant renewed his request to the Romanian Ministry of Justice
for information.
On
7 November 2007 the Bucharest County Court issued the exequatur
request and sent it to the Romanian Ministry of Justice, which on
19 November 2007 sent it back to the County Court as
incomplete. The Romanian Ministry of Justice forwarded the
completed file to the Hungarian authorities on 10 December 2007.
Throughout
the months of February and May 2008 the applicant submitted to
the Romanian Ministry of Justice repeated requests for information as
to the state of the proceedings.
On
12 June 2008 the Hungarian authorities informed the Romanian party
that they had received the request and the accompanying documents;
however the documents did not mention the addresses of the debtors in
Hungary and for this reason they were not able to establish which
authority was competent to deal with the request.
The
Romanian Ministry of Justice provided this information
on 16 June 2008 and 4 July 2008
respectively.
On
6 August 2008 the applicant requested the Bucharest County Court
to attach the decision of 16 June 2003 (stating the updated
amount of the debt) to the file in the exequatur proceedings.
On
9 September 2008 the Bucharest County Court asked the applicant
to itemise his additional expenses.
On
29 September 2008 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice confirmed that
the request for enforcement against F.O.D.K. had been forwarded to
the competent court. However, they were not able to examine the
enforcement request against K.J. as the file was not complete.
On
29 October 2008 the Romanian Ministry of Justice
communicated to the Hungarian party the court decision of
16 June 2003 regarding the updated amount for damages, as
well as the note on the additional expenses.
On
14 July 2009 the Hungarian party informed them that the Romanian
court decision of 2001 had been declared enforceable against F.O.D.K.
and a bailiff had been assigned.
On
31 July 2009 the Romanian Ministry of Justice was informed by
its counterpart that with respect to the debtor P.O. the court
dealing with the application required additional information
from the Bucharest County Court. This information was
forwarded by the Romanian Ministry of Justice on 27 January
2010. However, meanwhile, on 28 September 2009 the debtor
P.O. died.
On
26 November 2009 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice informed the
Romanian party that with respect to J.K. the first instance
court had declared the decision enforceable on 4 June 2009. The
appellate court had set aside the order on enforceability pending
submission by the Romanian first instance court of a
certificate required by Article 54 of European Union Regulation
(EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters. It appears that meanwhile
the said document had been forwarded by the applicant on
13 November 2009.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
The
provisions of the relevant legislation read as follows:
A. The Treaty between the Popular Republic of Romania
and the Popular Republic of Hungary regarding judicial
assistance in civil, family and criminal cases, ratified by Decree
no. 505/1958, published in the Official Journal of 17 January
1959:
Part I – General provisions
Article 3 – Contact
“1. In providing the legal assistance,
the judicial institutions of the two Contracting Parties
notify each other through their central bodies, to the extent that
this Treaty has not established otherwise.
2. Other institutions of the two Contracting
Parties which have competence in matters of civil or family law
communicate with each other or with the judicial institutions
through the Ministry of Justice, to the extent that this Treaty
has not established otherwise.”
Article 4 – Object of the legal assistance
“Contracting Parties shall provide mutual legal
assistance in the performance of procedural tasks such as preparing,
sending and delivery of documents, sending or delivery of material
evidence, conducting local surveys and research, and questioning the
parties, defendants, witnesses, experts and other persons performing
searches and seizures.”
Article 6 – Content of the request for legal
assistance
“An application for legal assistance shall contain
the following data:
a) the
name of the originating application;
b) the
name of the institution addressed;
c) the
case in which legal assistance is requested;
d) the
full name, address and citizenship status of the parties, accused,
indicted or convicted in criminal cases and, as far as possible, the
place and date of birth of the accused or defendants, and the names
of their parents;
d) the
name and address of their representatives;
e) necessary
data as requested, subject to criminal cases, and a description of
the facts.”
Section V – Exequatur requests
Article 46
“Both Contracting Parties shall recognise and
approve the enforcement, within their territory: (...)
b) final judgments given in the other
Contracting Party after entry into force of this Treaty, in
criminal cases, regarding the obligation to compensate the victim for
damage caused.”
Article 47
“1. The granting of enforcement falls
within the jurisdiction of the Contracting Party in whose
territory the enforcement is to be executed.
2. An enforcement request is filed with the
court of first instance which ruled in the case. This request
will be forwarded to the court competent to grant enforcement. The
request may be submitted directly to the latter court.
3. The application shall be accompanied by a
certified translation into the language of the Contracting Party on
whose territory the enforcement occurs.
4. The conditions of the enforcement request
are determined by the law of the Contracting Party in whose
territory the enforcement occurs.“
Article 48
“1. To a declaration of enforcement
must be attached:
a) the full text of the decision and proof
that the decision has become final and enforceable, unless that is
clear from the above;
b) the original documents, or certified
copies of such documents, showing that any person concerned by a
decision not to take part in the proceedings has been served with the
summons at least once, on time and in due form;
c) certified translations of documents
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).”
Article 49
“1. The enforcement approval procedure
and the procedure for the enforcement are determined by the law of
the Contracting Party in whose territory the enforcement occurs.”
B. Law No. 189/2003 regarding international legal
assistance in civil and commercial matters
Chapter I – General provisions
Article 2
“(...) 2) The provisions of this Law
shall not affect bilateral or multilateral conventions to which
Romania is or will become a party, but shall cover situations not
covered by them.”
Chapter II – The communication of judicial and
extrajudicial documents
to and from abroad
Section 2 – The communication of documents
abroad
Article 5 – The Role of the Ministry of Justice
and Civil Liberties
“(1) The Ministry of Justice and Civil
Liberties is the central authority through which the Romanian
judicial authorities communicate documents abroad.
(2) Upon receipt of documents from the
Romanian judicial authority, after international regularity control,
the Ministry of Justice and Civil Liberties will be able to send
them, as appropriate, depending on the existence and according to the
provisions of international conventions
a) by post to the named addressee;
b) to the competent central authority of the
recipient State, or
c) to the Romanian diplomatic mission or
consular authorities of the recipient State, through the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.”
Article 6 – Content and application form
“(...) 3) The application form shall be
accompanied by the proof of communication, which will include the
following:
a) the name of the requesting judicial
authority;
b) the documents to be communicated;
c) the name and address of the recipient;
d) the name of the recipient judicial
authority;
e) the name and status of the person who
receives the documents (the relationship of the consignee to the
addressee, for individuals,, or function, for legal entities);
f) the signature of the addressee (a stamp in
the case of legal persons);
g) the documents being communicated;
h) reasons for non-communication (recipient’s
refusal, address change etc.);
i) the agent’s signature and stamp
relating to the requisite judicial procedure.”
Article 7 – Translation of the application and
accompanying documents
“Unless the international Convention provides
otherwise, the application and supporting documents will be
translated into the language of the recipient State as follows:
a) the application for international legal
assistance – by the Ministry of Justice and Civil Liberties;
b) Appendices – by the Romanian
judicial authorities at the expense of the interested parties, except
for cases in which parties are exempted from paying court fees;”
(...)
Article 8 (1) The following shall constitute proof of
documents sent abroad:
“a) when communicated by post, directly
to the recipient – the confirmation of receipt;
b) communication by the central competent
authority of the recipient State or of the Romanian diplomatic
mission or consulate in that State – the form stipulated in
Article 6 (3).”
C. Law no. 191 of June 19, 2007 approving
Government Emergency Ordinance no. 119/2006 regarding
measures necessary for the implementation of Community regulations on
Romania’s EU accession
“Article 2 (1) In the case of judgments
rendered in Romania and for which is sought recognition or
enforceability in another EU member State, the power to issue,
according to Article 54 of Regulation no. 44/2001, the certificate
provided for in Annex V of the regulation lies with the
first court.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
The
applicant complained that lack of diligence on the part of the
competent Romanian authorities in assisting him in the enforcement
procedure of a judgment in his favour had infringed his rights
guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention and also his right to
property as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention. Insofar as relevant, these provisions read as
follows:
Article
6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal ...”
Article
1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived
of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
A. Admissibility
The
Romanian Government considered the application incompatible
ratione personae since the alleged violations were not
imputable to the Romanian authorities because the
responsibility for enforcing the court decision lay with the
Hungarian authorities.
According
to the Government, the Romanian minister had complied with all the
obligations arising from the bilateral agreement by forwarding the
exequatur request to the Hungarian authorities. They further argued
that the applicant had not been obliged to file his request via the
Romanian authorities, such a possibility being optional.
The Government referred to the admissibility decision of
9 June 2005 in the case of Dumitrascu v. Romania
and Turkey, where the Court had dismissed a similar complaint as
incompatible ratione personae since the applicant had
failed to file his request directly with the Turkish authorities in
accordance with the applicable law.
The
applicant contested any similarity to the case of
Dumitrascu v. Romania and Turkey; in that case, at
the request of the Turkish authorities, the applicant should
have filed the exequatur request directly with the competent Turkish
court, whereas in his own case the Romanian Minister of Justice
had suggested he contact the competent Romanian court in order
to file an exequatur request and had not considered the alternative
of a direct application to the competent Hungarian court, which,
according to the applicant, was in any event not feasible since the
debtors’ addresses were unknown.
The
Court observes that according to the provisions of Articles 3
and 4 of the bilateral agreement the role of
the Romanian Minister of Justice is that of an intermediate
authority whose role is to facilitate the enforcement process (see
paragraph 35 (A) above). The Romanian Government cannot
reasonably claim that the Hungarian authorities alone were
responsible for the enforcement of the domestic court decision
and that the role of the Romanian ministry was merely to forward
the exequatur request to their counterparts. Further, the Court
observes that Article 47 of the Treaty provides for the
possibility of filing an exequatur request directly with the
competent court. However, in the present case the Court notes that
the addresses of the debtors, which determine the competent court,
were not known; it was only in 2008 the Romanian
authorities acknowledged the addresses (see paragraph 27
above). In addition, the Court observes that the
Romanian Ministry of Justice informed the applicant
that the procedure to be followed was through the Minister of Justice
as an intermediate authority (see paragraph 8 above).
Therefore,
in the light of the above, the Court concludes that the application
is not incompatible ratione personae and that the
Government’s objection should be dismissed.
The
Court also notes that the application 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.
Merits
1. Concerning the complaint under Article 6 § 1
The
Government argued that the authorities had fulfilled
their obligations arising from the bilateral Treaty by
forwarding the exequatur request to the Hungarian authorities. They
argued that the provisions of the Treaty did not impose any other
obligations on the Romanian authorities and it there was no
obligation under the Treaty to monitor the outcome of the applicant’s
request. The fact that the applicant’s exequatur request had
not been registered in the data base of the Hungarian authorities
was not imputable to the Romanian authorities. All the documents
of the Minister of Justice had been forwarded through the Post Office
and there was no obligation for the central body receiving the
documents to confirm that fact. With respect to the content of the
exequatur request forwarded to the Hungarian authorities, the
Government noted that the large number of requests by the applicant
regarding the enclosures and the debtors’ addresses were not
were not imputable to the fault of the Romanian authorities, the
sole responsibility of the Minister of Justice being to
forward the documents, notwithstanding the fact that had been
extensive correspondence between them and
their Hungarian counterparts concerning the state of the
proceedings. Moreover, the Government considered that
Law No. 189/2003 regarding international judiciary
assistance in civil and commercial matters was not applicable in the
present case since it did not specifically refer to the exequatur
procedure; hence the provision which provided for confirmation of the
transmission of documents did not apply to the exequatur procedure.
The
applicant contested these arguments. He argued that
the Romanian authorities had failed to fulfil their
obligation under the bilateral Treaty and the above-mentioned
Law No. 189/2003 to assist him in the execution of a
domestic court decision. He considered that the Romanian authorities
had not informed him very clearly about the procedure to follow in
order to obtain the enforcement of the court decision in his favour
and had not acted with diligence and celerity in order to ensure the
effective exchange of information and correspondence between the
intermediary institution and themselves.
The
Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court
must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for
the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (Hornsby v.
Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1997-II). However, the right of
“access to court” does not impose an obligation on a
State to execute every judgment of a civil character without having
regard to the particular circumstances of the case (Sanglier v.
France, no. 50342/99, § 39, 27 May 2003).
The
State has a positive obligation to organise a system for enforcement
of judgments that is effective both in law and in practice and
ensures their enforcement without undue delay (Fuklev v. Ukraine,
no. 71186/01, § 84, 7 June 2005). When the authorities
are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do
so, their inactivity can engage the State’s responsibility on
the ground of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(Scollo v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 44,
Series A no. 315 C). It is for each State to
equip itself with legal instruments which are adequate and sufficient
to ensure the fulfilment of positive obligations imposed upon the
State (Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, § 66,
17 June 2003). The Court’s task is to examine whether the
measures applied by the Romanian authorities in the present case were
adequate and sufficient. In cases such as the present one, which
necessitate action by a debtor who is a private person, the State, as
the agent of public authority, has to act diligently in order to
assist a creditor in the execution of a judgment (Fociac v.
Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005).
The
Court notes that in the present case the applicant obtained a final
court decision on 26 March 2001 ordering private individuals to pay
him damages for the murder of his father. On 26 July 2001 the
applicant started the enforcement procedure before the Romanian
authorities. However, it was only in the course of 2009 that the
Romanian authorities completed the file submitted to the Hungarian
authorities in the exequatur procedure (see paragraphs 32 -34
above).
The
Court further notes that the enforcement proceedings against three of
the debtors are still pending before the Hungarian authorities.
Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with the provisions of
Article 49 of the bilateral Treaty (see paragraph 35 (A)), it is
the law of the State of the debtor which governs the enforcement
procedure, the Court will only examine whether the Romanian
authorities acted diligently in order to assist the applicant in the
execution of the judgment of 2001 as regards the obligations under
the aforesaid Treaty and the pertinent laws in force.
The
Court notes repeated delays in the transmission of correspondence
imputable to the Romanian authorities, as a result of which the
proceedings lasted at least seven and half years. It was only after
repeated requests from the applicant that the Romanian Government
inquired about the fate of the exequatur request and were thus
informed that it had never reached the Hungarian authorities (see
paragraphs 14 17 above).
The
Court further notes that, notwithstanding the detailed provisions of
the Treaty and Law no. 189/2003 as to the procedure, form and
content of such a request (see relevant domestic and international
law, paragraph 35 above) there were repeated shortcomings which
led to delays in the transmission of documents between the domestic
authorities and to the Hungarian authorities (see
paragraphs 11, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 33 and 34 above).
The
Court has dealt with cases raising issues similar to the ones in the
present case and found violations of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention (see, among others, Dinu v. Romania and France,
no. 6152/02, 4 November 2008; Orha v. Romania,
no. 1486/02, 12 October 2006; and Tacea v. Romania,
no. 746/02, 29 September 2005).
In
the light of the above, the Court considers that the respondent
Government has not submitted any fact or argument leading to a
different conclusion in the present case.
The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that in the present case the Romanian State, through its
specialised bodies, did not engage all the necessary efforts to
assist the applicant in the expeditious enforcement of a court
decision in his favour.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1
of the Convention.
2. Concerning the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention
54. The
applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the impugned
judgment breached his right to property as provided by Article 1
of Protocol No. 1.
However,
in view of its previous findings (see paragraphs 43 53 above),
the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine
this complaint separately.
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
The
applicant claimed 2,098.80 Euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage, representing the value of the debt, and
EUR 162.50 representing trial fees, taking account of the update
of the damage amount up to 2003. He also claimed EUR 8,000 in respect
of non pecuniary damage.
The Court reiterates that, where it has found a breach
of the Convention in a judgment, the respondent State is under a
legal obligation to put an end to that breach and make reparation for
its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible
the situation existing before the breach (see Iatridis v. Greece
(just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 32, ECHR
2000-XI).
As
regards pecuniary damage, the Court notes that the judgment in favour
of the applicant has not been enforced. However, considering the
particular circumstances of the case notably that the enforcement
proceedings are still pending before the Hungarian authorities and
the fact that the present application is directed only against
Romania, the Court will not make an award under this head.
The
Court further considers that the applicant has suffered non pecuniary
damage on account of the frustration caused by the length of the
enforcement proceedings and the fact that the Romanian authorities
have not diligently assisted him in his efforts to enforce the
decision of 26 March 2001, and that this damage is not
sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation.
Under
these circumstances, having regard to all the information at
its disposal and making an assessment on an equitable basis, as
required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the
applicant EUR 4,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 650 for the costs and expenses
incurred in the proceedings in the domestic courts and before
this Court, representing postal expenses, translations, experts’
taxes, stamp duties and travel expenses. He submitted invoices.
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 to the above criteria, the
Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 650
covering the costs under all heads.
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
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine
separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to
the Convention;
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, the following
amounts, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent
State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,800
(four thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 650
(six hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
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 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 applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Josep Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President
