THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 37768/08 Radu BEZNEA against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta, President, Luis López Guerra, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 September 2003,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Radu Beznea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Turnu-Măgurele.

The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2000 the applicant was awarded with agricultural land according to Law no. 1/2000 regarding the restitution of agricultural land which had been nationalised .

On 26 February 2006 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Land Authority in order to seek damages and daily interest thereon for the value of grain produced by his land and not harvested between 2000, when he was awarded the land, and 2002, when he was put into its possession.

On 15 June 2006 the applicant lodged a request for exemption from stamp duty and legal aid due to a low monthly income of 50.5 Romanian lei (RON). The request was dismissed as ill-founded on the ground that the applicant had an income and that his action had a pecuniary character which implied a proportional stamp duty.

On 14 September 2006 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action for failure to pay the stamp duty at the amount of 6,568.82 RON and court fees at the amount of 5 RON. The applicant lodged an appeal against the District Court ’ s decision. He argued that his action was exempted from stamp duty, as it fell under Law no. 1/2000.

On 13 April 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 18 March 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal admitted the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law and remitted the case to the first instance court for examination on the merits. The Court of Appeal concluded that the previous courts had erroneously rejected the applicant ’ s claim for exemption from court fees.

Therefore, the case was retried on the merits and on 17 November 2008, the Bucharest District Court admitted in part the applicant ’ s pecuniary claims and rejected the claim for moral damages. The applicant appealed the latter decision and filed a request to be exempted from stamp duty corresponding to the lodging of the appeal.

By decision of 25 May 2009 the Bucharest District Court admitted the applicant ’ s request and exempted him from stamp duty at the amount of 3,284 RON.

On 25 June 2009 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. He further lodged an appeal on points of law and filed another request to be exempted from stamp duty corresponding to the lodging of the appeal on the points of law.

By decision of 11 March 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal granted the applicant ’ s request for legal aid and waiver of stamp duty corresponding to this level of jurisdiction.

By a final judgment of 27 May 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law, thus upholding the lower court ’ s decision.

B. Relevant domestic law

Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning stamp duty, namely Law No. 146/1997 on stamp duty (as amended by Law No. 195/2004) and Ordinance No. 2214/1997 concerning the enforcement of Law No. 146/1997 are given in Iorga v. Romania (no. 4227/02, §§ 22-25, 25 April 2007).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court was blocked by imposing an excessive tax, by the courts ’ failure to review the merits of the case and by the refusal of the court to apply a legal provision which provided a tax exemption (Law no. 1/2000). The applicant also complained about the length of the proceedings which lasted four years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction with one remittal to the lower courts.

Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complained of a breach of his property rights arising from the lack of opportunity to recover the value of the grain produced on his land and which he had not collected for two years.

THE LAW

A. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

The applicant complained that his right to access to a court has been breached as his action was annulled for failure to pay stamp duty. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Government stated that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right of access to a court and that his application was therefore incompatible ratione personae with the Convention. They submitted that the applicant had ultimately benefited from the examination of his case file on the merits, after being exempted from payment of court fees. The fact that the applicant ’ s case had been tried on the merits is the clear evidence that the applicant had access to court and that he had thus lost his victim status.

The applicant disagreed with the Government and argued that he could still be considered a victim of a violation of the Convention.

In the Court ’ s view, there is no need to examine the issue whether the applicant is deprived of his status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention since it finds that this complaint is in any event manifestly ill-founded for the reasons set out below.

The Court reiterates that everyone ’ s right to have his or her civil rights and obligations determined by a court is a specific aspect of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention.

Therefore, the Court recalls that the fairness of the proceedings must be examined as a whole. Its task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see, mutatis mutandis , Edwards v. the United Kingdom , 16 December 1992, §§ 33-34, Series A no. 247 ‑ B) . It will therefore confine the applicant ’ s complaint examination to this point.

In the instant case, by decisions of 14 September 2006 of Bucharest District Court and 13 April 2007 of Bucharest County Court the applicant ’ s action was dismissed for failure to pay stamp duty. However, on 18 March 2008 these decisions were quashed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The case file was, therefore, remitted to the first instance court for a fresh examination on the merits. Further the applicant was granted legal aid and was exempted from stamp duty.

In this respect, the Court notes that his situation should be distinguished from that of indigent litigants who are required to pay substantial sums by way of security for costs or court fees in the initial stages of the proceedings, thereby raising issues of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Weissman and Others v. Romania , no. 63945/00 , § 37, ECHR 2006 ‑ VII (extracts) and Kreuz v. Poland , no. 28249/95 , §§ 52-57, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI).

Having regard to the fact that there has been no breach of the very substance of the applicant ’ s right to access to justice, the Court finds that the proceedings, considered as a whole , were not contrary to the requirements of a fair trial.

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

B. Remaining complaints

The applicant further complained about the excessive length of the proceedings which lasted four years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction with one remittal to the lower courts. He also alleged a breach of his property rights as he allegedly could not recover the damages he had suffered by not harvesting the grain from his land between 2000 and 2002.

That being so, having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that these complaints must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar President