THIRD SECTION

Application no. 15987/09 Doru RÄ‚CHITÄ‚ against Romania lodged on 17 March 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Doru Răchită , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest . He is represented before the Court by Ms Cristina Gabriela Răchită , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 31 October 2002 the Bucharest Commission for the Enforcement of Law no. 18/1991 on land, acknowledged the applicant ’ s property rights to 350 sq.m . of land that had been nationalized during the communist regime, issued a property title and gave him possession of the said land.

On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant brought proceedings inter alia against the Bucharest Mayor ’ s Office seeking a court order forcing the Mayor ’ s Office to remove a fence built by a third party on a public road that obstructed the applicant from accessing the 350 sq. m. of land returned to him. He argued and submitted evidence that after he had notified the Bucharest Mayor ’ s Office about his complaint, they dismissed it on the ground that his next door neighbour had not built a fence on the public road. He claimed that although, afterwards, he had attended a meeting at the Bucharest Mayor ’ s Office and informed the authorities that his complaint concerned the neighbour living across the street from his land, rather than his next door neighbour, the authorities had failed to take any further action.

By a final judgment of 3 November 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s action as ill-founded on the ground that he had failed to inform the administrative authorities about wrongfully identifying the neighbour he was complaining against and allowing them to solve the situation. In addition, it dismissed the applicant ’ s request for additional testimonial evidence and an expert report attesting that the road had been obstructed by the construction of the fence on the ground that they were unnecessary and inconclusive for the case.

COMPLAINTS

1. 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 action seeking the removal of the fence built by a third party on a public street obstructing his access to his property without properly examining the evidence submitted before them, in particular by relying on the incorrect finding that he did not inform the administrative authorities of their mistake in identifying the third party he was complaining against. In addition, they dismissed some of the evidence submitted by him and did not provide sufficient reasons for their decisions.

2. Invoking Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention the applicant complains that the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal breached his property rights and his right to freedom of movement in so far as he was unable to use or build on his property and was also unable to sell it.

QUESTIONS 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 so far as the domestic courts failed to conduct a proper examination of the submissions and arguments raised by him concerning the administrative authorities ’ inability to correctly identify the third party he was complaining against?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the fact that the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the proceedings lodged by him without properly examining the arguments submitted by him?

If so, was that interference in compliance with the conditions set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as interpreted in the Court ’ s jurisprudence?