ÎCCJ, decizie (scj.ro #86338)
ÎCCJ, decizie (scj.ro #86338) (Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție)
COUR EUROPÉENE
DES
DROITS DE
L’HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF
S.C.
COMPRIMEX S.A. v.
ROMANIA
(Application no.
32228/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
September 2008
FINAL
06/04/2009
This
judgment may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of S.C. Comprimex S.A. v.
Romania
,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power,
judges,
and Stanley Naismith
,
Deputy
Section
Registrar
,
Having deliberated in private on
9
September 2008
,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in
an
application (no. 32228/02)
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 company, S.C. Comprimex S.A. (“the
applicant”), on
21 January 2002
.
2.
The applicant was
represented by Mr Francisc Andras,
its managing director
.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr R
ăzvan-Horațiu
Radu.
On
23 May 2007
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
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant is a joint stock company based in
Bra
ș
ov
.
On
25 August 1994
the applicant brought
proceedings against the Transilvania University of Bra
ș
ov seeking
payment by the latter of an amount of money allegedly resulting from a contract
they had entered into, which concerned repairs that had to be carried out by
the applicant to one of the university’s halls of residence.
On
27 October 1995
the
Bra
ș
ov
Regional Court
(“the
Regional Court
”) dismissed the
action as premature, considering that the contract had not come to an end.
On
8 February 1996
the Bra
ș
ov Court of
Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal by the applicant, quashed the
previous judgment and sent the case back to the
Regional Court
for fresh
examination. It considered that the first-instance court had come to a decision
on the basis of an exception that was inapplicable.
During the retrial, of the nine hearings held
between
25 June 1996
and
4 February
1998
, two were adjourned at the applicant’s request. This included
the hearing of
25 June 1996
when it requested an adjournment to
allow the Supreme Court of Justice to decide on its demand to transfer the case
to another court, the hearing being fixed for
16 July
1996
. The
Regional Court
adjourned the
hearings until
29 October 1996
.
According to the applicant, on
16 July
1996
the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed its request.
On
11 February 1998
the
Regional
Court
rejected the applicant’s action as being groundless.
On
25 June 1998
the Court of Appeal
dismissed an appeal by the applicant.
On
18 March 1999
the Supreme Court of
Justice allowed by a final decision an appeal on points of law by the
applicant, quashed the previous judgment and remitted the case to the court of
appeal for fresh consideration. It found that one of the judges had also taken
part in the proceedings when the first-instance court had given the judgment of
27 October
1995
.
During the retrial, on
15 November 1999
the
applicant informed the Court of Appeal that it had made a request before the
Supreme Court of Justice to have the case transferred to another court, the
hearing being fixed for
17 February 2000
. The Court of Appeal
decided to stay the proceedings and sent the file to the archives. The hearings
were resumed on
21
April 2000
.
The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s request.
On
3 May 2000
the Court of Appeal
dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of
11 February 1998
, on the
grounds that the applicant’s claims had not been proved.
On
22 June 2001
the Supreme Court of
Justice by a final decision rejected as groundless an appeal on points of law
by the applicant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The applicant 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 contested that argument.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on
25 August 1994
and ended on
22 June
2001
. It thus lasted six years, nine months and twenty-eight days
for three levels of jurisdiction. Seven courts examined the case during this
period.
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that this complaint 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.
B. Merits
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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at
stake for the applicant in the dispute (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 case (see
Frydlender
, cited above).
Moreover, the Court has already found that, although it is not
in a position to analyse the juridical quality of the case-law of the domestic
courts, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is usually ordered as a
result of errors committed by lower courts, the repetition of such orders
within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency in the judicial
system. Moreover, this deficiency is imputable to the authorities and not the
applicants (see
Wierciszewska v. Poland
, no. 41431/98, § 46,
25 November 2003
, and
Matica
v. Romania
, no. 19567/02, § 24,
2 November
2006
).
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 the
present case. 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.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that
the outcome was unfair, that the domestic courts had failed to assess the facts
correctly, had misinterpreted the domestic law, had not been independent and impartial
and had not considered the case on the merits. It also relied on Articles 7, 14
and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Having carefully considered the applicant’s
submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds
that, in so far 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 or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application must
be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 rep
ara
tion to be made, the Court shall, if
necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The applicant claimed 1,210,910 United States Dollars
(USD) in respect of pecuniary damage. On
15
February 2008
it claimed 20,403,573 euros (EUR) under that head. It also
claimed USD 1,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
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 this claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have
sustained non-pecuniary damage (see
Comingersoll S.A. v.
Portugal
[GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, ECHR 2000‑IV)
. Ruling on
an equitable basis, it awards it EUR 1,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicant also claimed EUR 10,000 for the
costs and expenses incurred in the domestic courts and before the Court. It did
not provide any supporting documents.
The Government contested the claim as unsubstantiated.
The Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the
Convention it will reimburse only the costs and expenses that are shown to have
been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see
Arvelakis
v. Greece
, no. 41354/98, § 34, 12 April 2001).
Furthermore, Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court provides that itemised
particulars of any claim made under Article 41 of the Convention must be
submitted, together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing
which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part.
32. The Court notes that the applicant did not submit
any supporting documents or particulars to substantiate its claim. Accordingly,
the Court does not award any sum under this head.
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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
2.
Holds
that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3.
Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the
applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR
1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national 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 amount at
a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during
the default period plus three percentage points;
4.
Dismisses
the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on
30 September 2008
, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley
Naismith Josep
Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President