Communicated on 9 February 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 58162/14 Maria MANOLEA against Romania lodged on 14 August 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Maria Manolea , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Bucharest. She is represented before the Court by Ms A. Pantazi , a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Criminal proceedings

On 31 March 2006, at about 9 p.m., the applicant ’ s husband lost his life in a collision between a motorbike driven by C.A. and a car driven by R.M. The applicant ’ s husband was a passenger on the motorbike.

The applicant ’ s husband and C.A. were immediately transported to an emergency hospital. They died a few hours later.

A criminal investigation into the causes of the accident was opened immediately.

The applicant and her two minor children joined civil complaints to the criminal proceedings instituted against R.M.

On 20 September 2010 the Bucharest District Court convicted R.M. of manslaughter and sentenced him to one year and five month ’ imprisonment. The court held that both drivers were liable for the accident. The court also noted that both drivers were insured. It partly allowed the civil complaints lodged by the applicant and her children and ordered the insurance companies of both drivers to pay them 7,753.5 Romanian lei (“RON”) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 25,000 to the applicant and EUR 50,000 to each of her minor children in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

R.M. and the insurance companies appealed.

By a decision of 14 March 2011 the Bucharest County Court partly allowed the appeals lodged by R.M. and the insurance companies. Upholding the R.M. ’ s conviction it decreased the non-pecuniary damages awarded to the applicant to EUR 10,000 and to each of her children to EUR 15,000.

R.M. and the civil parties lodged appeals on points of law.

By a final decision delivered on 8 June 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal lodged by R.M. and dismissed the civil parties ’ appeals. It acquitted R.M. on the ground that only the driver of the motorbike, the deceased C.A., was liable for the accident. It dismissed the civil actions lodged by the applicant and her children against R.M. ’ s insurance company as unfounded and against the C.A. ’ s insurance company as inadmissible, without providing any additional reasons.

2. The separate civil action lodged by the applicant and her children

On 3 November 2011 the applicant and her children lodged a separate civil action against C.A. ’ s insurance company. They sought compensation for non-pecuniary damages in connection with the sufferance caused by the death of their husband and father. They claimed that they had tried to settle the issue in an amicable way and had summoned the insurance company for conciliation on 21 October 2011 but the insurance company had not replied.

By a judgment of 20 September 2012 the Bucharest County Court dismissed their civil action as time-barred. The court noted that the accident had occurred on 31 March 2006 and that the claimants had lodged their civil claims only on 3 November 2011, which was after the limitation term of three years provided by Decree no. 167/1958 had expired. The court dismissed the claimants ’ submission that the three year term had started to run only after the Bucharest Court of Appeal delivered its criminal decision on 8 June 2011. The county court held that the limitation term had started to run from the date of the accident, when the claimants became aware that C.A. was guilty for the accident and about the damages incurred by them.

The applicant and her minor children lodged an appeal. They argued that they could not be aware who was liable for the accident before 9 June 2011 when the Bucharest Court of Appeal delivered its final decision. Moreover, they maintained that they had added civil claims to the criminal proceedings even from the initial stages of the investigation.

By a decision of 19 February 2013 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal upholding the judgment of the court of first instance. It held that the institution of criminal proceedings by the judicial authorities of their own motion and the fact that the claimants joined civil claims to the criminal proceedings could not be considered as grounds for the interruption of the statutory limitation term.

The applicant and her children lodged an appeal on points of law. They contended that the domestic courts at two lower levels had not observed the applicable legal provisions. On 27 February 2014 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed their appeals on points of law upholding the decisions of the lower courts.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 19 (1) and (2) of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the relevant time, stated that victims seeking compensation for damages caused as a result of an offence and who had not become civil parties to the criminal proceedings might open a separate set of civil proceedings before civil courts. The proceedings opened before a civil court should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Articles 1, 3 and 8 of Law-Decree no. 167/1958, repealed by Law no. 71/2011, stated that proceedings of a pecuniary nature should be time barred within three years from the date the victim was aware or should have been aware of the damage and of the identity of the person who caused it.

In a decision delivered on 11 June 2014, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held that a victim seeking compensation for damages caused as a result of an offence, who added a civil complaint to pending criminal proceedings, was entitled to lodge a separate civil action in case that the criminal investigation against the perpetrator had been discontinued. In such a case the running of the statutory time-limit for civil liability started when the victim became aware that her/his civil claim had not been examined by the criminal court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that she has not had access to a court as her civil claim has not been examined on the merits being dismissed as time-barred.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

In view of the domestic courts ’ decisions that the civil claim for damages arising from the accidental death of her husband had become time-barred, did the applicant benefit from the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?