THIRD SECTION

Application no. 76048/11 Valeriu Marius IELCEAN

against Romania lodged on 25 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Valeriu Marius Ielcean , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Cluj Napoca .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 23 November 2006 the applicant lodged civil claims within the course of criminal proceedings opened against a third party after a car accident he was involved in. He claimed 856,897 lei (RON) (approximately 245,800 euros (EUR)) for pecuniary damage and 340,000 (approximately EUR 97,500) in non-pecuniary damage, updated with the inflation rate.

By a jud gment of 27 March 2009 the Cluj Napoca District Court sentenced the third party to a suspended two years prison sentence. In addition, by taking into account the pecuniary damage already paid by the third party to the applicant, the applicant ’ s suffering and his inability to work, it ordered the third party to pay him RON 851,897 (approximately EUR 244,800) in pecuniary damage and RON 100,000 (EUR 28,700) in non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, it dismissed the applicant ’ s request to have the amounts updated with the inflation rate on the ground that he had not requested it in his application for civil claims lodged before the court. The applicant appealed against the judgment. He argued that the first-instance court had made a calculation error in respect of the amount awarded as pecuniary damage. In addition it dismissed his request to have the amounts awarded for damage updated with the inflation rate on the ground that he failed to lodge such a request, although according to the evidence available to the file he had expressly requested it.

By a judgment of 14 March 2011 the Cluj County Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant. It held that the pecuniary damage awarded to the applicant had been correctly calculated by the first instance-court. The court of appeal failed to examine the second appeal point raised by the applicant. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment and reiterated the points raised before the second instance court. In addition he argued that the County Court failed to examine the second point of his appeal.

By a final judgment of 7 June 2011 the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law. It held that the lower courts had correctly determined the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage requested by the applicant. In addition the applicant had failed to request for the said amounts to be updated with the inflation rate.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not have a fair hearing before the domestic courts inasmuch as the said courts dismissed his request to have the pecuniary and non-pec u niary damage awarded to him updated with the inflation rate by relying on the incorrect finding that he did not lodge such a request before the courts. In addition, the domestic courts failed to correctly assess the pecuniary damage awarded to him and the proceedings he was a party to were excessively lengthy.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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 so far as the domestic courts failed to conduct a proper examination of the submissions and arguments raised by him, in particular of his request to have the amounts awarded for damage updated with the inflation rate?