THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 42686/04 Vasile RIZEA against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 4 February 2014 as a Cha mber composed of:

Josep Casadevall , President, Alvina Gyulumyan , Ján Šikuta , Dragoljub Popović , Luis López Guerra, Kristina Pardalos , Iulia Antoanella Motoc , judges, and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2004 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Vasile Rizea , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1953 and lives in PiteÈ™ ti . He was represented before the Court by Ms E. D. Dragomir , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represen ted by their Agent, Mrs I. Cambrea , from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4. The applicant was involved in a fraud case against S.L., G.N., M.M. and M.N. concerning the sale of a house. The applicant ' s civil complaints made the object of the cas e files no. 3387/P/2000 and no. 486/P/2000.

1. The applicant ' s first complaint

5. On 28 January 2003 the applicant and P.C. lodged a criminal complaint and a joined civil claim against twenty-one public administration officers and the four above-mentioned private persons for alleged corruption with the National Anticorruption Office.

6. On 26 May 2003 the National Anticorruption Office remitted the applicant ' s complaint to the PiteÈ™ ti Court of Appeal. The prosecutor stated that an analysis of the applicant ' s complaint had disclosed no clues or information warranting an investigation of the alleged crimes by an anti ‑ corruption prosecutor.

7. On 30 May 2003 the prosecutor examined the applicant ' s complaint and recommended that it be treated as a complaint against the prosecutor ' s decisions in the fraud cases 3387/P/2000 and 486/P/2000. He confirmed that there was no evidence that the public administration officers (including judges, prosecutors) had committed the alleged corruption offences.

8. According to the Government, the prosecutor dismissed the applicant ' s complaint on 18 June 2003. The appli cant complained before the Pite È™ ti District Court. H is complaint was dismissed on 7 October 2004. The judgment of the first-instance court was co nfirmed by the Arge È™ County Court which dismissed the applicant ' s appeal on points of law on 28 March 2005.

2. The applicant ' s second complaint

9. On 16 March 2004 the applicant reiterat ed his complaint against the 25 perpetrators. His complaint was registered as file no. 527/2003.

10. On 23 March 2004 the prosecutor informed the applicant that his complaint did not disclose other acts than those invoked in case files no. 3387/P/2000 and 486/P/2000.

11. Unsatisfied with a decision allegedly delivered by the prosecutor attached to the PiteÈ™ ti Court of Appeal on 3 June 2003, the applicant and P.C. lodged a complaint before the PiteÈ™ ti Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the action for lack of substance on 15 April 2004. It noted that the applicant ' s complaints in the fraud cases 3387/P/2000 and 486/P/2000 were still pending before the prosecutor ' s office and no decision to discontinue the criminal proc eedings had been delivered on 3 June 2003.

12. By a decision of 29 June 2004, the High Court of Cassation a nd Justice upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing the action.

13. In the meantime, the examination of the applicant ' s first complaint was pending and would eventually result in the decision delivered by the ArgeÈ™ County Court on 28 March 2005 (see paragraph 8 above).

B. Relevant domestic law

14. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the initiation of a civil action related to criminal proceedings are the following:

Article 14

“The object of a civil action is to establish civil liability against the defendant and any other party that bears civil liability.

A civil action may be joined to a criminal action within a criminal trial if the injured person claims for damages as a civil party ( ... )”.

Article 15

“The injured person may join the proceedings as a civil party against the accused person or the defendant and against the party that bears civil liability.

Joining the proceedings as a civil party may be done either during the criminal investigation or in court, before the charges are read out ( ... )”.

Article 19

“An injured person who did not sue for civil injury in the criminal trial may bring an action in the civil court for compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the offence.

The civil trial shall be postponed until a final decision has been given in the criminal case ( ... )”.

Article 20

“The injured person who can sue for civil injury in the criminal trial may initiate an action in the civil court if the criminal court, by its final decision, has not solved the civil action ( ... )”.

COMPLAINT

15. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied access to court because of the refusal of the domestic prosecutor and subsequently of the courts to examine his joint criminal and civil complaints.

THE LAW

16. The applicant complained that his right of access to court had been infringed because the domestic courts had dismissed the criminal complaint and the joined civil claim he had lodged on 28 January 2003 without an analysis of their merits. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows:

“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

A . The parties ' submissions

17. The Government ' s principal submission is that Article 6 § 1 is not applicable in the present case. They contended that the applicant ' s vague allegations against 21 alleged perpetrators did not amount to a serious dispute regarding rights of a civil nature. They further maintain ed that the applicant basically aimed at the re-opening of his civil case against four alleged perpetrators S.L., G.N., M.M. and M.N. , case which had already been settled by final decisions. They also submitted that in his complaint of 28 January 2003, the applicant had made criminal allegations against every civil servant, judge or prosecutor who had been involved in his civil proceedings in a desperate attempt to open the civil proceedings concerning the house (see paragraph 4).

18. In alternative, the Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies. In this respect they contended that on 29 June 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice had informed the applicant that his criminal allegations against the four alleged perpetrators, who had been parties to the civil proceedings initiated by him in connection with the house bought by him, had already been examined in the criminal cases no. 3387/P/2000 and no. 486/P/2000. However, the applicant had not complained that the authoritie s had not referred to the other 21 alleged perpetrators.

19. The applicant disagreed with the Government ' s submissions. He contended that his criminal complaint observed all the legal requirements. He further claimed that the Government had not submitted any decision issued by the prosecutor ' s office by which their criminal complaint had been settled.

B . The Court ' s assessment

20. The Court reiterates that t he applicability of Article 6 § 1 in civil matters firstly depends on the existence of a dispute. The “dispute” must be genuine and of a serious nature ( Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, § 81 , Series A no. 52 ). Moreover, t he result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for the right in question (see Ulyanov v. U kraine ( dec. ), no. 16472/04, 5 October 2010) Consequently a tenuous connection or remote consequences are not enough to bring Article 6 § 1 into play.

21. Article 6 § 1 is applicable to a civil-party complaint in criminal proceedings ( Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 70-71 , ECHR 2004 ‑ I ) , except in the case of a civil action brought purely to obtain private vengeance or for punitive purposes ( Sigalas v. Greece , no. 19754/02, § 29 , 22 September 2005 and Mihova v. Italy ( dec. ), no. 25000/07, 30 March 2010) .

22. The Convention does not confer any right, as such, to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence. To fall within the scope of the Convention, such right must be indissociable from the victim ' s exercise of a right to bring civil proceedings in domestic law, even if only to secure symbolic reparation or to protect a civil right ( Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24 , 20 March 2009 ). Therefore, Article 6 applies to proceedings involving civil-party complaints from the moment the complainant is joined as a civil party, unless he or she has waived the right to reparation in an unequivocal manner.

23. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was involved in lengthy proceedings with S.L., G.N., M.M. and M.N . in connection with an alleged fraud. In his complaint of 28 January 2003, he had reiterated all his complaints concerning their fraudulent behavior. This was the reason for which this last complaint was considered as a challenge to the prosecutor ' s decisions delivered in previous criminal proceedings initiated by the applicant against the same individuals. They had b een finally decided by the ArgeÈ™ County Court on 28 March 2005.

24. The applicant ' s complaint of 28 January 2003 also contained a list of twenty ‑ one police officers, judges and civil servants who allegedly committed corruption offences in order to support the four defendants in the fraud case. The complaint did not contain any details as to the factual circumstances of their alleged crimes. The Court notes that according to Article 222 § 2 of the Code of Criminal procedure, in force at the material time, a criminal complaint must contain a description of the relevant facts in connection with the alleged offences.

25. The Court further notes that the National Anticorruption Prosecutor stated in his decision of 26 May 2003 that an analysis of the applicant ' s complaint had disclosed no clues or information warranting an investigation of the alleged crimes by an anti-corruption prosecutor.

26. The Court considers that the indiscriminate character of the allegations made by the applicant in his complaint of 28 January 2003 against every person involved in any way in his prior proceedings indicates an attempt to re-open the civil case rather than a genuine self ‑ contained civil dispute against any of the 21 individuals indicated.

27. The Court is, therefore, forced to conclude that the outcome of the proceedings before the criminal courts were not decisive for the a pplicant ' s right to obtain compensation from the 21 alleged perpetrators . Accordingly, there was no “dispute” over a “civil right” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention in this respect.

28. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provision of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

29. As regards the applicant ' s allegations concerning th e other four perpetrators, S.L., G.N., M.M. and M.N , the Court notes that they had been examined in several final decisions.

30. For these reasons, the Court finds that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and should be dismissed as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President