Communicated on 27 January 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 45011/14 Cristina Simona OROS against Romania lodged on 10 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Cristina Simona Oros , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Satu Mare .

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

Following her divorce, the applicant claimed before the Satu Mare District Court that property that she and her husband jointly owned as spouses should be divided .

By a judgment of 14 February 2013 the first-instance court partly allowed her action. The marital property was divided up so that the applicant ’ s husband was to receive the apartment bought during marriage and half of the movable assets consisting in home appliances and furniture. The applicant received the other half of the movable assets and was entitled to receive the payment of 51,477 Romanian lei (“RON”) (approximately 11,700 euros) from her ex- husband for her share in the marital apartment.

T he applicant ’ s husband , being dissatisfied with the way the marital property was divided by the court, filed an appeal against the judgment with the Satu Mare County Court which, on 1 July 2013 , dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the first-instance court.

The applicant ’ s husband lodged an appeal on points of law. He claimed, amongst other things, that the apartment had been acquired by him with the money obtained from the sale of the apartment he had owned before his marriage.

On 25 March 2014 the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law and partly quashed the district Court ’ s judgment. It found that the joint marital property consisted of only a quarter of the apartment and reduced the value of the movable assets to RON 9,275. It reduced the amount to be paid to the applicant by her ex-husband from RON 51,477 to RON 12,102 (approximately 2,750 euros). The appeal court had changed the applicant ’ s share in the marital patrimony without providing any reasons.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a total lack of motivation of the decision delivered by the court of last resort by which the proportion of assets attributed to her from the marital patrimony by the first-instance court was changed.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, what were the reasons for the Bihor Court of Appeal to decide that the joint matrimonial property consisted of only a quarter of the apartment? Were these reasons sufficient to partly set aside the judgment of the first-instance court?