Communicated on 10 July 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 63474/10 Petru HIJNÃŽI against Romania lodged on 13 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Petru Hijnîi , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Chi ş in ă u . He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Grama , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Proceedings seeking the annulment of a police report

On 3 September 2006 the applicant, who was an employee of company V.V.T., was fined 300 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 85 euros (EUR)) by the Br ă ila Police Department for touching with his lorry the left side of a bus parked on a public road . In addition, his driving licence was suspended .

According to the police report produced at the time of the incident , although the bus had been lawfully parked, had its navigation lights turned on and the applicant had noticed it, he had failed to keep the lawfully required distance and had touched the left side of the bus, damaging it.

On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant opened proceedings against the Brăila Police Department and asked the domestic courts to annul the police report, the fine and the suspension of his driving licence.

By a final judgment of 6 November 2006 the Făurei District Court allowed the applicant ’ s action. It held that according to the available testimonial evidence the bus driver, and not the applicant, was guilty of causing the accident because the former had parked the bus in an unauthorised location and without turning on the bus ’ s navigation lights. Given that the applicant ’ s act was not committed with guilt, it did not amount to a contravention and it could not engage his contraventional responsibility ( r ăspundere contravențională ) .

2. General tort law proceedings

On 29 May 2008 the bus driver ’ s employer brought general tort law proceedings against the applicant and company V.V.T. seeking compensation for the damage to the bus caused by the accident.

By a judgment of 19 December 2008 the Făurei District Court allowed the bus driver employer ’ s action and ordered the applicant and company V.V.T. to pay jointly EUR 4,250 in compensation for damages caused to the bus. It held that according to the testimonial evidence, the police report of 3 September 2006 and the technical expert report produced in the case the applicant was guilty of causing the accident. In addition, the bus driver bore no responsibility for the accident. The court also noted that the applicant failed to prove that the police report of 3 September 2006 had been annulled.

The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. He submitted the final judgment of 6 November 2006 before the second ‑ instance court. In addition, he argued amongst other things, that the aforementioned judgment had annulled t he police report of 3 September 2006 and had established that he was not guilty for causing the accident.

By a final judgment of 13 April 2010 the Br ă ila County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. It acknowledged that the final judgment of 6 November 2006 had established that the bus driver, and not the applicant, was guilty of causing the accident. It held that neither the bus driver, nor his employer had been party to the proceedings that ended by the final judgment of 6 November 2006 and therefore the aforementioned judgment was not opposable to them. Given that the aforementioned judgment was mandatory only for the parties to the proceedings, the court could not rely on it. Consequently, it considered that according to the testimonial and expert evidence adduced to the file, the applicant was guilty of causing the accident.

The applicant lodged extraordinary appeal to review proceedings ( revizuire ) against the final judgment of 13 April 2010. He argued, amongst other things, that the final judgments of 6 November 2006 and 13 April 2010 were conflicting and breached the principle of legal certainty in so far as his guilt for causing the accident was concerned.

On 21 September 2011 the Brăila County Court dismissed the applicant ’ s extraordinary appeal to review . It held that the two judgments could not be considered conflicting as long as the two sets of proceedings concerned different parties and different aims.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 22 of the former Romanian Criminal Procedure Code provides that the final judgment of a criminal court is res judicata for the civil court examining a civil claim in so far as the existence of the act, the person who perpetrated it and his guilt is concerned.

C OMPLAINT S

The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention that the final judgment of 13 April 2010 breached the principle of legal certainty and his right to be presumed innocent in so far as the Br ă ila County Court found him guilty of having caused the accident and ordered him to pay civil compensation although a previous final judgment of 6 November 2006 of the F ă urei District Court had established that he was not guilty of causing the accident.

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, had an “irreversible” judicial decision already been taken on the matter on the applicant ’ s guilt for causing the road accident he was involved in which was then ignored by the domestic courts in a later set of proceedings, thereby breaching the principle of legal c ertainty?

2. Has the applicant ’ s right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention been breached following the Br ă ila County Court ’ s judgment of 13 April 2010 in respect of the applicant ’ s guilt for causing the road accident he was involved in?