...

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Adrian Mihai Ionescu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Buc h arest . The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their A gent, M r Răzvan ‑ HoraÅ£iu Radu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3. In an action before the Bucharest District Court , the applicant claimed 90 euros (EUR) in damages from an international road transport company (“the company”) , alleging that it had failed to perfo rm its contractual obligations.

4. He claimed that in respect of a return journey between Bucharest and Madrid , which had cost him EUR 190, the company had failed to observe the safety and comfort requirements set out in its advertising material , namely the provision of fully reclining seats, a change of coach in Luxembourg and the availability of six drivers.

5. On 6 January 2004 he requested the production of the relevant transport documents held by the defendant company .

6. In a judgment of 7 January 2004 the court dismissed his action . After examining the clauses of the contract of carriage, it found that none of the conditions referred to by the applicant were mentioned . The court did not rule on the request for the production of certain items of evidence .

7. In an appeal on points of law received in the court ' s registry on 22 January 2004, the applicant challenged that judgment . In his grounds of appeal , filed in the registry on the same day , he alleged that the impugned judgment was based on contradictory grounds , that it was the result of an erroneous application of the law and that it infringed the law . The applicant added that the court had failed to rule on certain defence s that were crucial for the outcome of the dispute and that i t had misinterpreted the subject-matter of the proceedings .

8. He developed his arguments relying on provisions of the Civil Code and on the interpr e tation of the contractual clauses.

9. The case was referred to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”). Under the C ode o f Civil Procedure as then in force, the appeal was subject to a two-stage examination : first, the High Court would a djudicate in private on its admissibility and, if it was declared admissible, the merits of the impugned judgment would then be examined in a public hearing .

10. On 26 February 2004 the applicant submitted “pleadings concerning the admissibility of the appeal” in which he argued that it should be declared admissible because the substantive and procedural conditions were satisfied .

11. In a final judgment delivered in private on 2 April 2004 in the absence of the parties, who had not been summoned to appear, the High Court declared the appeal null and void , under Article 302-1 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as then in force, on the ground that it had not stated the reasons why the District C ourt ' s decision was alleged to be unl awful.

12. On 3 August 2004 the applicant applied to have that judgment set aside , alleging that it was the result of a manifest error on the part of the High Court, because he had set out his grounds of appeal in the document filed on 22 January 2004. In addition, he complained about the lack of publicity of the proceeding s before the High Court .

13. In a judgment of 26 January 2005 the High Court rejected his application on the ground that no appeal lay against the judgment of 2 April 2004 .

B. Relevant domestic law

14. The Code of Civil Procedure ( as amended by the Government ' s Emergency Order no. 58 of 25 June 2003) , as worded at the material time, contained the following provisions :

Article 299

“Appeals on points of law shall be heard by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, unless otherwise provided by law.”

Article 302-1 § 3

“Statements of appeal on points of law shall , if they are not to be declared nul l and void, ... indicate the grounds of illegality raised and contain the corresponding reasoning ...”

Article 304

“The setting-aside or quashing of a judgment may be sought only in the following cases and for the following reasons :

1. if the bench was composed in breach of the statutory provisions ;

2. if the judgment was delivered by judges other than those who heard the case on the merits ;

3. if the judgment was rendered in disregard of the jurisdiction of another court ;

4. if the court exceeded its jurisdiction ;

5. if the judgment was rendered contrary to rules of procedure of which a breach carries the sanction of nullity ... ;

6. if the judgment was rendered ultra petit a ;

7. if the judgment did not give reasons or if it was based on reasoning that was contradictory or unrelated to the subject-matter of the proceedings ;

8. if, on account of misinterpretation , the court modified the subject-matter of the proceedings whereas that subject-matter had been clear and undisputed ;

9. if the judgment was not based on the law , if it infringed the law, or if it was the result of an erroneous application of the law ;

10. if the court failed to rule on certain defence s or certain documents in the file that were crucial for the outcome of the dispute.”

Article 304-1

“An appeal on points of law against a judgment which is not subject to an ordinary appeal shall not be limited to the situations provided for in A rticle 304, as the appellate court shall be entitled to examine all the aspects of the case . ”

Article 308 §§ 1 and 4

“The president of the court which receives the appeal on points of law shall appoint a bench of three judges to rule on its admissibility ...

If the judges are unanimous in finding that the admissibility conditions are not satisfied , or if they find that the grounds of appeal and the accompanying arguments do not correspond to those set out in A rticle 304, they shall declare the appeal null and void or, if appropriate, reject it in a reasoned decision without summoning the parties , that decision not be ing subject to appeal .”

15. Law no. 195 of 25 May 2004, further amending the Code of Civil Procedure , repealed the provisions of Emergency Order no. 58/2003 conce rning the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of Cassation and Justice to hear appeals on points of law , together with the provisions concerning the preliminary examination of their admissibility . Appeals on points of law are now examin ed by the courts that are immediately above those that gave the judgments at first instance or on appeal , without any preliminary examination of admissibility, and in accordance with the ordinary procedure provided for by the Code of Civil Procedure .

COMPLAINTS

16. Relying on A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the District Court had failed to rule on his request for the production of evidence, that the proceedings in the High Court had not been public, and lastly that he had not had access to the High Court for the purpose of appealing against the judgment of 7 January 2004 .

17. Referring to A rticle 13 of the Convention, he complained that the appeal against the above-mentioned judgment had not constituted an effective remedy and that there had been no remedy by which to challenge the judgment of 2 Ap ril 2004.

THE LAW

18. The applicant submitted a number of complaints under A rticle 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which 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 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

19. First , as regards the proceedings before the District Court, the applicant alleged that the court had omitted to rule on his request for the production of evidence .

20. The Court reiterate s at the outset that the admissibility of evidence i s primarily a matter for regulation by national law and that it is for the national courts to assess whether it is appropriate to take evidence . Nor is it for the Court to examine an application concerning errors of fact or law allegedly committed by domestic courts .

21. In view of all the material in its possession, and to the extent that it is competent to examine the allegations made , the Court finds that the District Court carried out a wholly independent assessment of all the circumstances of the case and the various evidence adduced by the parties and g ave adequate reasons for its judgment. The judgment was given after adversarial proceedings during which the applicant had been able to present the observations and legal grounds that he deemed necessary, together with arguments in support of his position . It cannot therefore be considered that the proceedings failed to meet the requirements of fairness under A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention.

22. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with A rticle 35 §§ 3 ( a) and 4 of the Convention.

23. Secondly , as regards the examination by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of his appeal on points of law , the applicant complained that the procedure had not been public and that the appeal had been declared null and void . He also complained that there was no remedy by which to challenge the High Court ' s judgment .

24. The Government admitted that the applicant ' s right of access to a court had been subjected to limitations, but argued that the conditions of admissibility of the appeal on points of law had been compatible with Convention requirements . They alleged that the applicant had not satisfied the procedural conditions laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure , as he had failed to refer expressly to the cases he sought to submit in which such an appeal was available .

25. They further pointed out that the High Court had examined the applicant ' s pleadings and had concluded that his arguments did not enable it to relate his complaints to the cases in which such an appeal was available . The Government concluded that the annulment of the appeal had been the result of negligence on his part .

26. The applicant maintained that the decision declaring null and void his appeal on points of law had breached his right of access to a court . He stated that in his pleadings of 22 January 2004 he had cited and developed the provisions of A rticle 304 of the Code of Civil Procedure . He thus took the view that the High Court had confined itself to a purely formal examination of his appeal and had dismissed it arbitrarily .

27. The Court finds at the outset that the applicant ' s complaints about the proceedings before the High Court underlie those concerning the annulment of his appeal and may be seen in the context of his right of access to a court .

28. The Court further notes that A rticle 35 of the Convention, as amended by Protocol N o. 14, which entered into force on 1 June 2010, provides as follows :

“ 3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that :

a. the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or

b. the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.”

31. As indicated in p aragraph 79 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol N o. 14 : “T he new criterion may lead to certain cases being declared inadmissible which might have resulted in a judgment without it. Its main effect, however, is likely to be that it will in the longer term enable more rapid disposal of unmeritorious cases ”.

36. In those circumstances the Cour t finds that the applicant has not suffered any “significant disadvantage” in the exercise of his right of access to a court .

41. The three conditions of the new in admissibility criterion ha v ing therefore been satisfied , the Cour t finds that this complaint must be declared inadmissible under A rticle 35 § § 3 ( b) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stanley Naismith Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President