FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF AȘTILEANU AND AXENTE v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 43258/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aștileanu and Axente v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Romanian nationals Mr Gheorghe Aştileanu (“the first applicant”), Mr Vasile Aştileanu (“the second applicant”), Mr Sandu Axente (“the third applicant”), Mr Vasile Aştileanu (“the fourth applicant”) and Mr Pavel Aştileanu (“the fifth applicant”) on the date indicated in the appended table.
2. The application was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
5. The Court received friendly-settlement declarations under which the first, second and third applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to the part of the application concerning their complaints, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amount detailed in the appended table. This amount will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of this part of the application.
THE LAW
I. COMPLAINTS RAISED BY THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD APPLICANTS
6. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the first, second and third applicants and the Government. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of this part of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLAINTS RAISED BY THE FOURTH AND FIFTH APPLICANTS
7. The fourth and fifth applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
8. 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 and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
9. In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table to the fourth and fifth applicants.
14. 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 strike the part of the application concerning the complaints raised by the first, second and third applicants out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention;
2. Declares the reminder of the application admissible;
3. Holds that the part of the application concerning the complaints raised by the fourth and fifth applicants disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the fourth and fifth applicants, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declarations
Date of receipt of Applicants’ declarations
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic court file number
Friendly settlement amount or amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant / household
(in euros)[1]
43258/07
27/09/2007
(5 applicants)
Gheorghe Aștileanu
14/11/1964
Vasile Aștileanu
Born: 29/01/1934, deceased: 31/03/2011;
Proceedings pursued by heirs Gheorghe Aştileanu (14/11/1964), Vasile Aştileanu (22/01/1966) and Pavel Aştileanu (17/11/1967).
Sandu Axente
06/02/1955
01/09/2014
10/09/2014
02/10/2014
1 200
1 200
1 200
Household
Vasile Aștileanu
22/01/1966
Pavel Aștileanu
17/11/1967
17/06/1999
28/03/2007
7 years, 9 months and
12 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
7940/117/2006
1 200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy