LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
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 IULIAN MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 20671/04;41747/08;861/09;9811/12;24755/13;26433/13;55369/13 • ECHR ID: 001-158177
Document date: October 22, 2015
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
CASE OF IULIAN MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 20671/04;41747/08;861/09;9811/12;24755/13;26433/13;55369/13 • ECHR ID: 001-158177
Document date: October 22, 2015
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF IULIAN MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 20671/04, 41747/08 , 861/09, 9811/12, 24755/13, 26433/13 and 55369/13 )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 October 2015
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision .
In the case s of Iulian Mocanu and Others v. Romania ,
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco , President ,
Branko Lubarda ,
Mārtiņš Mits , judges
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar ,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2015 ,
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
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
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 criminal 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 that the length of the criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonab le time by [a] ... tribunal ... ”
7 . 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II ) .
8 . In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania , nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013 , th e Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints . Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
10 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11 . Some applicants also raised other complaints under various A rticles of the Convention.
12 . 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 set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto .
It follows that this part of the application s 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
13 . 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.”
14 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law ( see Vlad and Others v. Romania , cited above, §§ 166-173 ), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table .
15 . 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 concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;
4. 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 amount s at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2015 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Karen Reid Valeriu Grițco Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
( excessive length of criminal proceedings )
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
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]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
per application
(in euros) [2]
20671/04
21/04/2004
Iulian MOCANU
14/09/1964
-
30/09/1999
09/12/2005
09/10/2001
21/01/2010
6 years and 1 month
3 levels of jurisdiction
500-
41747/08
26/08/2008
B ă nică
CAZAC
04/01/1972
Irina Maria PETER
Bucharest
05/10/1999
14/03/2008
8 years and 5 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
840
320
861/09
22/12/2008
Rudolf Marius BASSETTI
19/05/1957
Olga Vasilisia PETCU
Cluj-Napoca
07/12/2000
26/06/2008
7 years and 7 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
-
9811/12
21/09/2011
Flaviu Mircea MOLDOVAN
09/09/1946
Mihaela Elena BURZO
Cluj-Napoca
25/11/2000
24/03/2011
10 years and 4 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
2,400
230
24755/13
01/04/2013
Household
Adrian Constantin GONTARU
23/05/1983
Stej ărel GONTARU
26/07/1968
-
22/10/2007
28/09/2012
4 years and 11 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
-
26433/13
08/04/2013
Gheorghe IFTODI
18/02/1973
Petru Marian VOINA
05/05/1973
-
Gabriela DIMA
Brașov
09/02/2000
08/05/2008
15/04/2004
28/11/2012
8 years and 10 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
-
55369/13
23/08/2013
Alexandru MÃŽNDRUÈš
03/01/1953
Gheorghe DRAGOMIR
Bucharest
27/02/2007
26/02/2013
6 years
3 levels of jurisdiction
500-
[1] P lus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] P lus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
