Published on 20 February 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 58527/18 Marian-Valeriu RADU against Romania lodged on 3 December 2018 communicated on 30 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in which the applicant was a victim and a civil party, resulting in the impossibility for him to obtain compensation.

The applicant was involved in a car crash and suffered injuries. The criminal proceedings that ensued resulted in the finding of two persons responsible for the accident by the first instance court. They were sentenced and obliged, together with their insurances, to pay the applicant compensation.

On appeal the judgment was reversed, and the accused persons were acquitted. The Court of Appeal found that the applicant needed less than ninety days of medical care, i.e. less than the minimum of days required by law for criminal liability to be triggered. In so doing, the court noted that the last medical expert report issued by the National Institute of Forensic Medicine had established a number of over one hundred days of medical care, while the penultimate report issued by the same institution three months earlier had set that number at seventy-five. The court noted that the last report contained no explanation as to the increased number of days and decided not to rely on it for that reason. The solution was later upheld by the highest instance with the consequence that it became impossible for the applicant to claim compensation in separate civil proceedings on account of the statute of limitations.

The applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair because the Court of Appeal failed to properly provide reasons for its judgment, namely to explain why it preferred the penultimate expert report over the last one.

QUESTIONS 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 particular, did the domestic courts properly motivate their judgments and, in view of that, did the applicant have access to a court to claim compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of the accident in which he had been involved (see Suominen v. Finland , no. 37801/97, § 36, 1 July 2003 and Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-99, 5 April 2018)?

The Government are requested to submit a full copy of the case-file in the domestic proceedings.