LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Loading citations...Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF TEICĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 2337/04, 25482/04, 26485/04, 28121/04, 32099/06, 40757/06, 47515/06, 30883/07, 23243/08, 45244/08, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-167555
Document date: October 20, 2016
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 1
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
CASE OF TEICĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 2337/04, 25482/04, 26485/04, 28121/04, 32099/06, 40757/06, 47515/06, 30883/07, 23243/08, 45244/08, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-167555
Document date: October 20, 2016
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF TEIC Ä‚ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
( Application no. 2337/04 and 22 others – see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision
In the case of Teic ă and Others v. Romania ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Egidijus Kūris , Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2016 ,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
7. After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicants S.C. Alma Bucovina S.R.L. (in application no. 26485/04), S.C. T & G Trading S.R.L. (in application no. 28121/04), Florian Mițoi (in relation to the proceedings between 13 June 2001 and 25 March 2005, in application no. 40757/06) and Federalcoop Constanța (concerning the proceedings between 26 April 2001 and 21 January 2011, in application no. 48595/10) must be dismissed as they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
8. As regards the other complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
9. In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints and so it considers that in the instant case the length of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III . REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. Some of the applicants raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
13. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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 reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the append ed table, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 2337/04 and 3578 3/09 who failed to respond to the Court ’ s letters of 4 December 2009 and 27 April 2015, respectively, inviting them to submit their just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court.
16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints raised by the applicants S.C. Alma Bucovina S.R.L. (in application no. 26485/04), S.C. T & G Trading S.R.L. (in application no. 28121/04), Florian Mițoi (in relation to the proceedings between 13 June 2001 and 25 March 2005, in application no. 40757/06) and Federalcoop Constanța (concerning the proceedings between 26 April 2001 and 21 January 2011, in application no. 48595/10) inadmissible.
3. Declares the remaining complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings ;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points ;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2016 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Vincent A. De Gaetano Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
( excessive length of civil proceedings )
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth/ Date of registration
Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household
(in euros) [1]
2337/04
05/11/2003
Marin Vergil TEICÄ‚
06/03/1925
05/04/1996
15/07/2003
7 years and 3 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
0
25482/04
23/04/2004
Ioan OPRIȘĂNESCU
04/07/1932
Mihai Paul
Oprișănescu
Bucharest
19/08/1999
13/10/2009
10 years and 1 month
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
26485/04
28/06/2004
Alexandru MANDIUC
08/04/1955
29/06/1999
01/06/2006
6 years and 11 months
1 level of jurisdiction
2,000
28121/04
28/04/2004
Georgeta ION
13/11/1955
Abdel Hady Hassan TAREK HASSAN
10/07/1959
Nicoleta Tatiana
Popescu
Bucharest
23/02/2001
14/06/2013
12 years and 3 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
2,400
32099/06
20/07/2006
Vergil CATANÄ‚
27/04/1962
08/11/2000
19/01/2006
5 years and 2 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
800
40757/06
18/09/2006
Florian MIÅ¢OI
28/09/1953
19/09/2006
26/11/2010
4 years and 2 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
800
47515/06
28/09/2006
Claudiu Gheorghe TOMA
08/08/1969
26/04/1999
05/04/2006
6 years and 11 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
500
30883/07
05/06/2007
Household
Vasile RIZEA
03/09/1953
Rodica RIZEA
15/05/1952
30/06/2000
18/01/2007
6 years and 6 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
23243/08
10/05/2008
Household
Ion STAN-ENACHE
21/11/1928
Ioana STAN-ENACHE
10/02/1935
Stan Enache Lucian
Las Vegas
09/09/1999
13/11/2007
8 years and 2 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
45244/08
09/09/2008
Household
Jan CONSTANTIN
29/05/1951
Rada CONSTANTIN
02/12/1954
Cristina Georgeta Toma
Bucharest
13/06/1996
12/03/2008
11 years and 9 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
3,000
35783/09
01/06/2009
Ioana PETRACHE
02/09/1949
31/10/2003
07/10/2005
pending
13/12/2013
More than 12 years and 8 months
1 level of jurisdiction
8 years and 2 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
0
37240/09
29/06/2009
Octavian GOÅžA
31/03/1953
02/06/2000
12/12/2008
8 years and 6 months
1 level of jurisdiction
1,800
61891/09
04/08/2009
Traian POPOVICIU
13/08/1949
23/09/1998
16/02/2009
10 years and 4 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
2,400
65865/09
10/12/2009
Mugurel NIÈšOIU
05/06/1966
Daniel Caraman
Bucharest
09/01/2001
16/06/2009
8 years and 5 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
10460/10
14/12/2009
Sándor KOCSIS
24/04/1956
15/08/1997
12/06/2009
11 years and 9 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
3,000
48595/10
12/08/2010
FEDERALCOOP
CONSTANÅ¢A
02/04/1949
18/12/2003
07/07/2005
09/03/2010
07/06/2011
6 years and 2 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
5 years and 11 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
2,000
74375/10
06/12/2010
Mihai RADIANU
22/02/1954
Ulupinar Elena Roxana
Bucharest
27/01/1995
10/06/2010
15 years and 4 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
3,600
6692/12
17/01/2012
Elena RÃŽPEANU
18/10/1967
07/11/2007
18/11/2011
4 years
2 levels of jurisdiction
800
9633/12
03/09/2011
Leonica POPESCU
22/07/1951
10/12/2003
08/03/2011
7 years and 2 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
56627/12
27/08/2012
Veronica IOANICESCU
12/07/1947
08/09/2003
29/02/2012
8 years and 5 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
29229/13
22/04/2013
DragoÈ™ DUCIUC
11/09/1939
Ioan DUCIUC
15/04/1966
Rozalia RÄ‚STOACÄ‚
16/09/1960
Eufrosina DUCIUC
21/11/1968
27/01/2005
26/10/2012
7 years and 9 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
41128/13
17/06/2013
Zoltan BOROS
08/05/1975
Krisztina Kecseti
Miercurea Ciuc
24/07/2007
19/12/2012
5 years and 4 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
800
76265/13
28/11/2013
Laurian SÃŽNGEAP
06/10/1956
27/12/2007
06/05/2009
03/09/2008
28/05/2013
4 years and 10 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
800[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
