Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 116
February 2009
Abramiuc v. Romania - 37411/02
Judgment 24.2.2009 [Section III]
Article 13
Effective remedy
Lack of effective remedies for length-of-proceedings complaints: violation
Facts: In 1984 the applicant, a chemical engineer in a State-owned company, was acknowledged as the author of an invention and issued with a patent by the National Patent Office. Between 1984 and 1991 his invention was used industrially by the State-owned company concerned. In 1991 the company was reorganised into a publicly funded joint-stock company and continued to use the applicant’s invention in its production process, but without paying him any royalties, leading him to take legal action against the company in 1992. In 1994 the County Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the company to pay him 253,942,510 Romanian lei (ROL) together with interest at an annual rate of 6 %. Appeals lodged by the company were rejected. With a view to securing the enforcement of the 1994 judgment the applicant referred the case to the bailiffs and brought various actions, none of which resulted in prompt and full enforcement of the judgment, partly because of stays of execution granted by the Principal State Prosecutor or the courts. The debtor company also lodged several actions to oppose the enforcement, one of which began in 1996 and ended with a final judgment of the Court of Appeal in June 2002.
Meanwhile, in 1995 the applicant brought a new action against the company alleging that it had continued to use his invention after he lodged his first action seeking payment of royalties. This new action also ended with a judgment of the Court of Appeal in June 2002.
In 2005 a transaction certified by a solicitor was concluded between the debtor company on the one hand and the applicant and another creditor of the company on the other. Under the terms of that transaction the company paid them a total of ROL 4,500,000,000 to terminate all proceedings linked to the enforcement of the 1994 judgment and pending before the domestic courts or the bailiffs.
Law: Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 1994: The judgment of 1994 had given rise to a “possession” in respect of the first applicant within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In order to secure the enforcement of that judgment the applicant had had to institute several legal actions, even though the debtor company had been publicly owned until its privatisation in 2003. But it was not fitting for an individual who had won a claim against the State in court to have subsequently to take legal action to obtain satisfaction. Enforcement of the judgment concerned had been hindered by a number of stays of execution granted by both the Principal State Prosecutor and the courts which examined the debtor company’s objections, parallel proceedings or special appeals. As the judgment of 1994 had not been executed until 7 July 2005, the stays of execution had resulted in an abnormally lengthy delay. Having regard to its case-law on the matter and the facts of the case, the Court found that the State had failed to make all the necessary efforts, through its specialised bodies, to have the judgment of 1994 enforced.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 – Length of the proceedings brought to a conclusion by the judgments of June 2002: The first set of proceedings had lasted five years, six months and three days and the second seven years one month and seven days. Under Romanian law the first set of proceedings, opposing the enforcement of the judgment, should have been examined urgently, as a priority; however, the proceedings had been stayed pending the outcome of other proceedings lodged by the debtor company, aimed solely at delaying enforcement. Turning to the second set of proceedings, concerning the payment of royalties to the applicant, the Court observed that they had been stayed for about five years pending the outcome of proceedings concerning the validity of the applicant’s patent. Having regard to its case-law on the matter, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings concerned had been excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 13 – First of all, the Government referred to the possibility of lodging a disciplinary complaint with the Judicial Service Commission in the event of excessively lengthy proceedings. However, it was not established, in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Venice Commission in its report on the effectiveness of domestic remedies against the excessive length of proceedings, that such a remedy – aimed primarily at establishing the disciplinary liability of judges – would have had any direct and immediate effect on the length of the proceedings of which the applicant complained. Moreover, the Government had presented no example of national practice proving that the applicant could have obtained proper redress by that means. Thus disciplinary action against judges could only affect the personal situation of the judges concerned and could therefore not be regarded as an effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings.
The Government also referred to the possibility of court action. However, most of the national court decisions the Government had presented mentioning provisions of the Convention or the Court’s case-law had been delivered well after the proceedings at the origin of the applicant’s length-of-proceedings complaints had been finally determined. In addition, the decisions concerned had generally been delivered at first instance and on appeal, and only one had concerned the length of proceedings and the corresponding remedy. Lastly, deficiencies in the functioning of Romania’s judicial system due to repeated procedural errors in, and remittals to, the courts below had already been identified. Accordingly, without prejudging any positive developments domestic law and case-law might undergo in this connection in the future, the Government had not adequately proved in this case that the applicant had had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention which he could have used to complain about the length of the proceedings.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy