FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DRAGOMIR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 23864/06 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dragomir and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
7. 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8. 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.
9. 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 as to 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
11. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention.
12. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Vlad and Others v. Romania, cited above, §§ 166-173), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. 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 complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, as set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 6 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıVincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
23864/06
05/06/2006
Dragoș
DRAGOMIR
09/12/1972
Sergiu Andon
Bucharest
24/07/1998
08/12/2005
7 years
and 4 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
80668/13
13/12/2013
Maria-Mirona FARCAŞI
15/01/1981
Mihaela -Cristina Mîţu
Bucharest
02/06/2004
14/06/2013
9 years
3 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
1879/14
24/12/2013
Ileana-Andreea HUIU
21/08/1973
Gheorghe Dinu
Târgoviște
21/02/2007
26/06/2013
6 years
and 4 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
500
35028/14
08/05/2014
Lazăr Dorin MAIOR
04/03/1960
Gheorghiță Mateuț
Arad
27/12/2006
11/11/2013
6 years
and 10 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,200
40579/14
23/05/2014
Elvis ION
26/03/1982
Stan Daniel Lungu
Bucharest
09/03/2006
03/12/2013
7 years
and 8 months
3 levels of jurisdiction
900
53647/14
25/07/2014
Camelia MARINOIU
03/01/1967
Gheorghiță Mateuț
Arad
11/05/2005
31/01/2014
8 years
and 8 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
1,800
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy