THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GHEORGHE AND MARIA MIHAELA DUMITRESCU
v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 6373/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 July 2008
FINAL
26/01/2009
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gheorghe and Maria Mihaela Dumitrescu v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 July 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 6373/03) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian nationals, Mr Gheorghe Dumitrescu and Mrs Maria Mihaela Dumitrescu (“the applicants”), on 10 February 2003.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms Michaela Claude-Dumitrescu. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
3. The first applicant, acting in the name and in his capacity as the legal representative of his daughter (the second applicant), complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts to which she was a party was excessive.
4. On 3 May 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants, who are father and daughter, were born in 1947 and 1995 respectively and live in Cepari.
6. On 4 June 2000 the second applicant was grievously injured in a car accident. She suffered total paralysis of her lower limbs and was admitted to hospital where, according to the first applicant, she remained for 709 days.
7. On an unknown date during pre-trial investigations the
second applicant’s mother claimed damages in criminal proceedings. On 7 December 2000 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Curtea de Argeş Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) committed T.M., the driver of the car, for trial before the Court of First Instance.
8. Of the fourteen hearings held between 17 January and
7 December 2001, ten were adjourned for the absence of witnesses or of expert reports, for hearing new witnesses and for ordering a new expert report, two at T.M.’s request for the absence of her lawyer and one for deliberations.
On 7 December 2001 the Court of First Instance convicted T.M. of having negligently caused bodily harm, sentenced her to a conditional prison sentence of three months, held her personally liable and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the second applicant and to her mother. It also ordered T.M. to pay the mother a monthly sum pending her daughter’s recovery.
9. On 26 March 2002 the Argeş Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) rejected an appeal by the mother, considering that the Court of First Instance had correctly reduced the damages on the ground of contributory negligence by the second applicant and lack of surveillance by the parents.
10. On 25 June 2002 the Piteşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld a subsequent appeal lodged by both the second applicant’s mother and T.M. and quashed the previous judgment, sending the case back for retrial. The court noted that the insurance company had not been summoned.
11. During the retrial the six hearings held between 26 September 2002 and 9 January 2003 were adjourned at the request of either T.M. or the insurance company.
12. On 23 January 2003 the Court of First Instance sentenced T.M. to a conditional prison sentence of three months, held her jointly liable with the insurance company and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the second applicant and to her mother, including a monthly sum pending the second applicant’s recovery.
13. On 8 May 2003 the Regional Court rejected an appeal by the second applicant’s mother and, finding that her daughter had been exclusively at fault, allowed an appeal by the opposing parties, held T.M. personally liable and reduced the amount of damages.
14. On 20 November 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld subsequent appeals lodged by the second applicant’s mother and by the public prosecutor, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for retrial. The court considered that both parties to the accident had been at fault and that the Regional Court had not pronounced on all the complaints raised by the second applicant’s mother.
15. After the retrial, on 3 March 2004 the Regional Court allowed the action lodged by the second applicant’s mother in part and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, finding T.M. jointly liable up to a certain sum and exclusively liable for the remainder.
16. On 27 May 2004 the Court of Appeal gave a final decision rejecting as unfounded an appeal by the second applicant’s mother. The court considered that the quantum of damages had been correctly assessed.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
17. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings 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...”
18. The Government contested that argument.
19. The period to be taken into consideration began at the latest on 7 December 2000 and ended on 27 May 2004. It thus lasted at least
three years, four months and twenty days for three levels of jurisdiction. Eight courts examined the case during this period.
A. Admissibility
20. The Government considered that the first applicant was not a victim, as he had not participated in the domestic proceedings.
21. The applicants contested that argument.
22. The Court notes that the first applicant is the father of the second applicant and that he acted before the Court in the name and in his capacity as the legal representative of the second applicant, while it was the mother of the second applicant who acted as her legal representative in the domestic proceedings. In these circumstances, it is undeniable that both parents of the second applicant may act on her behalf as legal representatives. However, insofar as the father has included his own name as applicant, the Court considers that this is misconceived, as he cannot be regarded himself as a victim of any violation of the Convention for the purposes of Article 34.
Accordingly, to this extent the preliminary objection must be upheld and this part of the application, which is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4. The second applicant is therefore the sole applicant for the purposes of this application.
23. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
24. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
25. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case
(see Frydlender, cited above).
26. 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 present case. Moreover, the dispute in the present case related to compensation for physical injury following a car accident which involved the applicant, a five-year old child, who suffered total paralysis of her lower limbs. The Court is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Gheorghe v. Romania, no. 19215/04, § 54, 15 March 2007 and Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5 October 2006).
27. The Court does not consider the subject matter of the case to be complex and, although the overall length of the proceedings does not appear to be excessive, the Court observes that the domestic courts twice quashed previous judgments due to procedural errors for which responsibility res
