European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF IULIAN MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

 

(Applications nos. 20671/04, 41747/08, 861/09, 9811/12, 24755/13, 26433/13 and 55369/13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

22 October 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.




In the cases of Iulian Mocanu and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Valeriu Griţco, President,

          Branko Lubarda,

          Mārtiņš Mits, judges

and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2015,

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

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

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

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.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained 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).

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.

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 set out 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.

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 22 October 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Karen Reid                                                                        Valeriu Grițco
       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 / household (in euros)[1]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]
1.	20671/04 21/04/2004	Iulian MOCANU 14/09/1964	-	30/09/1999 09/12/2005	09/10/2001 21/01/2010	6 years and 1 month 3 levels of jurisdiction	500	-
2.	41747/08 26/08/2008	Bănică CAZAC 04/01/1972	Irina Maria PETER Bucharest	05/10/1999	14/03/2008	8 years and 5 months 3 levels of jurisdiction	840	320
3.	861/09 22/12/2008	Rudolf Marius BASSETTI 19/05/1957	Olga Vasilisia PETCU Cluj-Napoca	07/12/2000	26/06/2008	7 years and 7 months 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,200	-
4.	9811/12 21/09/2011	Flaviu Mircea MOLDOVAN 09/09/1946	Mihaela Elena BURZO Cluj-Napoca	25/11/2000	24/03/2011	10 years and 4 months 3 levels of jurisdiction	2,400	230
5.	24755/13 01/04/2013	Household Adrian Constantin GONTARU 23/05/1983   Stejărel GONTARU 26/07/1968	-	22/10/2007	28/09/2012	4 years and 11 months 2 levels of jurisdiction	1,200	-
6.	26433/13 08/04/2013	Gheorghe IFTODI 18/02/1973   Petru Marian VOINA 05/05/1973	-       Gabriela DIMA Brașov	09/02/2000 08/05/2008	15/04/2004 28/11/2012	8 years and 10 months 3 levels of jurisdiction	1,800	-
7.	55369/13 23/08/2013	Alexandru MÎNDRUȚ 03/01/1953	Gheorghe DRAGOMIR Bucharest	27/02/2007	26/02/2013	6 years 3 levels of jurisdiction	500	-

 




---

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.