THIRD SECTION

CASE OF OPRIŞ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 29116/03, 33405/04, 43013/05, 7360/06 and 13610/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 February 2012

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Opriş and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Egbert Myjer, President,
	Luis López Guerra,
	Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 January 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in five applications (nos. 29116/03, 33405/04, 43013/05, 7360/06 and 13610/06) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Romanian nationals, Gheorghe Opris, Natalia and Ovidiu Pantea, Maria Judea, Vasile Iancic, Constantin Stelian Iordanescu, Emil Gongescu, Nicoleta Dumitrescu, Veronica Maria David and Ioana Mihaela Apahideanu (“the applicants”). Details as to the applicants’ dates of birth, introduction of the applications as well as their representatives are indicated in the appended table. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their
Agent, Mrs Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2.  On 31 August 2009, 9 July, 2 and 16 September 2010 respectively the President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (former Article 29 § 3). In accordance with Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent Government, the applications were assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
3.  The Government objected to the examination of the applications by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The details as to the subject matter of the cases, reference dates for the start and end of the proceedings and the length of the proceedings are set out in the table appended hereto.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5.  The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings described in the appended table had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
6.  The Government expressed the opposite view.
7.  In application no. 7360/06, in which the proceedings started before Romania’s ratification of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration began only on 20 June 1994, when the recognition by Romania of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
A.  Admissibility
8.  In applications nos. 29116/03 and 43013/05 the Government argued that the applicants did not complain expressly or in substance about the length of the proceedings.
9.  The Court notes that in the application forms, the applicants did express their discontent regarding the lengthy proceedings, making a detailed summary of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants raised this complaint in substance.
10.  In applications nos. 33405/04 and 7360/06, the Government argued that the applicants lodged the applications outside the six months time limit set forth under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
11.  The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints were raised within the six month time limit from the date when the final decisions became available to them. It is therefore satisfied that the applicants raised their complaints within the said time limit.
12.  In conclusion, the Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
13.  The Government argued that the applicants had contributed to the delays in the proceedings.
The applicants contested this argument.
14.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
15.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present cases (see Frydlender, cited above, Abramiuc v. Romania, no. 37411/02, § 130, 24 February 2009).
16.  In the present cases, having regard to the length of the proceedings as mentioned in the appended table, and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion. In the light of its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in these cases the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
17.  Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the outcome and the unfairness of the proceedings, as well as of the impartiality of the courts. They argued that the courts wrongfully assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions (applications nos. 29116/03, 43013/05, 7360/06, 13610/06). Some of them complained of the length of other domestic proceedings (application no. 33405/04).
18.  Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they also raised complaints concerning alleged violations of property rights or alleged rights to compensation (applications nos. 29116/03, 33405/04 and 13610/06).
19.  Having considered the applicants’ submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
20.  It follows that these complaints are manifestly-ill founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A.  Damage
22. The applicants have submitted the following claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage:

No.	Application no.	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	
1.	29116/03	EUR 600,000	EUR 3,000	
2.	33405/04	EUR 30,000	Court’s appreciation 	
3.	43013/05	None	EUR 18,000	
4.	7360/06	None	EUR 200,000	
5.	13610/06	None	EUR 10,000	

The Government contested these claims.
23.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged in applications nos. 29116/03 and 33405/04; it therefore rejects these claims.
24.  On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them the following amounts under that head:
-	EUR 600 to the applicant in application no. 29116/03;
-	EUR 1,200 jointly to the first and the second applicants and
-	EUR 600 jointly to the third and the fourth applicants in application no. 33405/04;
-	EUR 1,200 jointly to the applicants in application no. 43013/05;
-	EUR 5,200 to the applicant in application no. 7360/06;
-	EUR 900 to the applicant in application no.13610/06.
B.  Costs and expenses
25.  Some of the applicants have submitted claims for costs and expenses. The Court considers that there is no call to award any sum in this respect to the applicants who have not submitted such claims. Furthermore, the claims submitted by the applicants and which are not supported by documents are to be rejected.
26.  In conclusion, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the following sums covering costs under all heads, as follows:

No.	Application no.	Amounts claimed	Amounts supported by documents	Amount awarded	
1.	29116/03	EUR 3,000	None 	None	
2.	33405/04	No claims	N/A	None	
3.	43013/05	RON 5,231.20	RON 5,231.20	EUR 200	
4.	7360/06	Included in the claims for non-pecuniary damage	None	None	
5.	13610/06	EUR 1,537.14	RON 2,632.5	EUR 200	
C.  Default interest
27.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Decides to join the applications;

2.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings described in the appended table admissible in respect of all applications and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 600 (six hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 29116/03;
(ii)  EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) for
non-pecuniary damage jointly to the first and the second applicants and EUR 600 (six hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage jointly to the third and the fourth applicants in application no. 33405/04;
(iii)  EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros) for
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses jointly to the applicants in application no. 43013/05;
(iv)  EUR 5,200 (five thousand two hundred euros) for 
non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 7360/06;
(v)  EUR 900 (nine hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 13610/06;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 February 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Marialena Tsirli	Egbert Myjer	
	Deputy Registrar	President
Appendix 1

No.	Case no. and date of lodging	Applicant’s Details	Length of the proceedings	Subject Matter	
1.		29116/03
21 July 2003	Gheorghe OPRIS, born in 1941 and residing in Sighetu Marmaţiei; represented by Mr P. Antoni	2 September 1996 - 7 February 2003
6 years, 5 months
3 levels	Action for partition of goods following divorce	
2.		33405/04
13 July 2004	A. Natalia and Ovidiu PANTEA, born in 1948 and 1976 respectively and residing in Sebiş the second applicant is represented by Mr C. Otlacan.
B. Maria JUDEA and Vasile IANCIC, born in 1936 and 1938 respectively and residing in Arad the second applicant is represented by Mr V. Judea	A. 15 February 1999 – 5 April 2006
7 years, 2 months
3 levels

B. 25 June 2001 – 20 June 2007
6 years
3 levels	Two sets of civil proceedings seeking the return of property rights over an immovable property	
3.		43013/05
25 November 2005	Constantin Stelian IORDANESCU, born in 1931 and residing in Bucharest, also representing Emil GONGESCU and Nicoleta DUMITRESCU, residing in Făurei and Braşov respectively	12 August 2002 – 15 June 2009
6 years, 10 months
3 levels	Action seeking the annulment of a sales contract over a nationalized immovable property	
4.		7360/06
6 February 2006	Veronica Maria DAVID, born in 1964 and residing in Camarzana represented by Mr G. David	10 February 1992 (20 June 1994) – 31 March 2005
10 years, 9 months
3 levels	Criminal complaint against third party with joint civil action	
5.		13610/06
9 February 2006	Ioana Mihaela APAHIDEANU, born in 1949 and residing in Bucharest	17 March 1999 - 13 June 2006
7 years, 3 months
3 levels	Action for partition of an inheritance