THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 50832/08 Georgeta SÄ‚LÄ‚VÄ‚STRU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 March 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Kristina Pardalos , Johannes Silvis , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2008,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Georgeta Sălăvăstru , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Vaslui .

The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, M r s Irina Cambrea , from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Vaslui .

On 29 May 1997 S.C. Rexom S.R.L. (“the company”), a limited-liability company in which the applicant acted as single shareholder, filed a criminal complaint for fraud and other false-related offences against several private persons. A civil claim was joined to the complaint.

On 28 July 1998 the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office with the Bârlad District Court dismissed the complaint.

On 19 July 2000 the company underwent winding up proceedings before the Vaslui County Court . As from that date onwards, the applicant no longer had power to carry on the business of the company, the control of which had been transferred to a court-appointed liquidator.

On 7 November 2000 the Higher Ranking Public Prosecutor allowed the applicant ’ s complaint against the decision of 1998 and ordered that the investigation be re-opened.

On 10 April 2002 the criminal investigation was discontinued as one suspect had died and the statutory time-limit to pursue the charges had run out in respect of the other. The decision also instructed the applicant to seek compensation before the civil courts.

The applicant challenged this decision.

On 6 October 2005 the Public Prosecutor who examined the complaint acknowledged that the applicant ’ s request to have several documents annulled had been disregarded. At the same time, the prosecutor indicated that any criminal action would be time-barred and that civil remedies were available to the applicant in order to seek annulment of the documents and pecuniary compensation. The decision was challenged in court.

On 11 January 2006 the Bârlad District Court dismissed the contestation. The applicant did not appeal the decision, which became final on 30 January 2006.

Separately, the applicant brought her civil claims before the Bârlad District Court on 21 November 2005. She also sought to have several documents declared null and void.

On 19 September 2006 the court allowed the action in part. It declared the impugned documents null and void, but dismissed the claim for pecuniary compensation. The applicant appealed on points of law.

On 19 June 2007 the Vaslui County Court allowed the appeal and quashed the first-instance judgment. The case was remitted to the lower court for re-trial.

Upon re-trial, the civil action was allowed by a decision taken by the Bârlad District Court ruling as first-instance. The judgment was again appealed on points of law.

On 17 June 2008 the Vaslui County Court reached its decision. It dismissed the action on account of the applicant ’ s lack of legal standing. The Court ruled that since the civil dispute concerned two private companies, the claimant being the bankrupt company that the applicant no longer represented, the civil claims could have been lodged solely by the appointed liquidator. The judgment became final.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the civil and criminal proceedings. Under the same Article, she also complained about the outcome and the overall fairness of the proceedings.

The applicant further alleged that the courts ’ dismissal of her civil claims amounted to a breach of the right to property as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention .

THE LAW

A. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of proceedings

The applicant complained that the length of the civil and criminal 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...”

1. The parties ’ submissions

The Government submitted that the two sets of criminal and civil proceedings, although stemming from the same factual situation, had to be considered separately. That being the case, they pointed out that the applicant had failed to observe the six-month time-limit fixed by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the criminal proceedings, which ended on 11 January 2006 when the Bârlad District Court gave its final judgment, thus more than two years before the application was lodged with the Court.

In respect of the civil proceedings, the Government indicated that they had lasted for some two years and five months for two levels of jurisdiction. They further pointed out that the examination of the case entailed the consideration of evidence and arguments put forward by parties with conflicting interests and that the overall length could not be deemed to be unreasonable under the meaning of the Convention.

The applicant did not make any submissions in reply to the Government ’ s arguments.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

The Court acknowledges that the applicant was involved in two sets of proceedings before the domestic courts as follows. She firstly lodged a criminal complaint to which she joined certain civil claims on 29 May 1997. The proceedings came to a conclusion on 11 January 2006 when the first-instance court dismissed the contestation.

The Court thus observes that the end point of the criminal proceedings is dated more than two years before the submission of the present application.

It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

The Court further notes that the applicant initiated a separate set of proceedings by bringing her civil claims before the domestic courts on 21 November 2005. The courts rendered their final decision in the case on 17 June 2008. The total length of the civil proceedings was thus two years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction.

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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII ).

Having examined all the material submitted to it and regard being had to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length complained of cannot be considered as unreasonable under the meaning of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must, as such, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

B. Other complaints

Relying on Article 6 § 1 , the applicant complained about the outcome and the overall fairness of both sets of proceedings, alleging that the domestic courts had f ailed to conduct a proper examination of the evidence submitted to them. She further alleged that the courts ’ dismissal of her civil claims amounted to a breach of the right to property as guaranteed under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Having considered the applicant ’ s submissions in light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. In particular, the complaint regarding the criminal proceedings, which ended on 11 January 2006, is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1. Further, with regard to the civil claims, the Court notes that the applicant failed to observe the statutory requirements when bringing her civil claims before the domestic courts and that, therefore, she has not properly exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of her claims.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar President