FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF DRĂGUŞANU AND CHRISTOULACIS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 4125/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 July 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Drăguşanu and Christoulacis 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 5 July 2018,
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”) on 30 November 2011.
2. The application was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the merits of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The 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 ...”
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 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 and 2 others, 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 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.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
13. 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. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of the list on the basis of the unilateral declaration;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been 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 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 26 July 2018, 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
Representative name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic court file number
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
4125/12
30/11/2011
Neculai Ovidiu Drăguşanu
21/11/1954
Elena
Christoulacis
02/05/1958
Gabriela Macovei
Piatra-Neamţ
18/10/2005
14/06/2011
5 years, 7 months and
28 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
47/279/2005
1,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy