THIRD SECTION

Application no. 1197/11 Elena PETRAÅžCU

against Romania lodged on 6 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Elena PetraÅŸcu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1931 and lives in Bucharest. She is rep resented before the Court by Mr P. Manta, a lawyer practic ing in Bucharest.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 6 November 2008 the applicant brought proceedings against a third party seeking the annulment of the sale contract with a maintenance clause for her apartment.

By a judgment of 12 May 2009 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action as ill-founded. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was subject to appeal within fifteen days from notification.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment before the Bucharest County Court and submitted her reasons for appeal within the lawfully allowed time limit.

At the hearing of 2 February 2010 the applicant argued before the Bucharest County Court inter alia that the market value of her apartment was 110,000 Lei (RON) (approximately 27,000 Euros (EUR)).

By a final interlocutory judgment of 6 April 2010 the Bucharest County Court held that according to fiscal documents submitted by the applicant before the first-instance court the tax value of the apartment was RON 65,000. Consequently, according to Article 282 1 (1) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure the applicant ’ s appeal had to be re-qualified to appeal on points of law ( recurs ).

On 2 June 2010 the applicant submitted written observations before the Bucharest County Court. She reiterated her argument that the value of her apartment was RON 110,000 and contended that the second-instance court had wrongfully re-qualified her appeal.

By a final judgment of 18 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court declared null the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. It held that the applicant had not submitted her reasons for appeal on points of law within the allowed time-limit.

B. Relevant domestic law

Articles 282, 287 and 292 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provide that the judgments of the first-instance courts are subject to appeal within fifteen days from the date of notification. The reasons for appeal must be submitted by the parties at the latest at the time of the first hearing before the court. The failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the allowed time-limit does not lead to the annulment of the appeal, but to the inability to raise additional issues of fact and law that had not been raised before the first-instance court.

Articles 282 1 (introduced by Law no. 195/2004 which entered into force on 29 May 2004) , 299, 301 and 302 1 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure provide that the judgments delivered in respect of disputes where the object of the dispute is valued at less than RON 100,000 (approximately EUR 25,000) are not subject to appeal. The judgments that are not subject to appeal are subject to appeal on points of law. The appeal on points of law can be lodged within fifteen days from the date the judgment was notified to the parties. The reasons for the appeal on points of law must be su bmitted within the same fifteen- d ay time-limit, otherwise the appeal on points of law will be declared null.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfa irness of the proceedings inso far as her right of access to court was restricted because the last instance court failed to examine her case after it had re-qualified and annulled her appeal. In addition she complains that the proceedings had been excessively lengthy.

2. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of an alleged breach of her right of property inso far as she was deprived of her apartment.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the last instance court, in determining her civil rights and obligations, disproportionately restrict the applicant ’ s right of access to court in breach of Article 6 of the Convention by annulling her appeal without examining the merits of her case after it had re-qualified it to appeal on points of law ( recurs )?

2. Did the annulment by the domestic courts of the applicant ’ s appeal without touching on the merits of the case after they had re-qualified it to appeal on points of law ( recurs ) constitute a disproportionate interference with her property rights, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?