THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GLASBERG AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 29292/02, 32538/05, 24265/07 and 21985/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 July 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Glasberg and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in four applications (nos. 29292/02, 32538/05, 24265/07 and 21985/08) 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, Sari-Charlotte Glasberg, Gheorghe Mihai, Constantin Chirilă, S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L. and Ion Bălaşa, (“the applicants”). The particulars of each applicant are indicated in the appended table. The applicant in application no. 29292/02 has also the German nationality; the German Government did not exercise their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. On 15 September, 9 November, 14 October 2009 and 8 October 2008 respectively, the President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the applications to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility (former Article 29 § 3). In accordance with Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent Government, the applications were assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
3. The details as to the subject matter of the cases, reference dates for the start and end of the proceedings and the length of the proceedings are set out in the table appended hereto.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
4. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. 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... ”
6. The Government expressed the opposite view.
7. In applications nos. 29292/02 and 24265/07, in which the proceedings started before Romania’s ratification of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration began only on 20 June 1994, when the recognition by Romania of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time.
A. Admissibility
1. Preliminary objections
a) Application no. 24265/07
8. The Government argued that the applicant lodged the application on 19 July 2007, namely more than six months from the date of the final decision of 8 December 2006.
The applicant contested this argument.
9. The Court notes that the first letter of the applicant was sent on 24 April 2007. Therefore, his complaint was raised within the six month time limit set forth under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
10. The Government also invoked the fact that the applicant did not complain expressly or in substance about the length of the proceedings.
11. The Court notes that in the application form, the applicant did express his discontent regarding the fact that he had been “dragged” in courts since 1992, making a detailed summary of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant raised this complaint in substance.
b) Application no. 21985/08
12. The Government considered that the first applicant (S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L.) could not stand before the Court as victim, as the company did no longer have legal capacity. As for the second applicant, the Government asked the Court to dismiss his complaint due to the fact that he was not a party to the domestic proceedings.
The applicants contested these arguments.
13. The Court notes that the first applicant (S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L.) had legal capacity at the time when the facts occurred and also at the time when the application was lodged before the Court. Furthermore, the applicants informed the Court that the company was undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.
14. Regarding the second applicant, the Court notes that he only took part in the domestic proceedings as the representative of the company and without bringing any personal claims. Therefore, in light of the Court’s case-law, he cannot pretend to be a victim in respect of alleged violations directly affecting the company (Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, Series A no. 330‑A). The Court shall therefore accept the Government’s objection and consequently dismiss the complaint in respect of this applicant.
2. Conclusion
15. The Court notes that, with the exception of the second applicant in application no. 21985/08, the other applicants’ complaints regarding the excessive length of the proceedings are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
16. The Government argued that the applicants had contributed to the delays in the proceedings.
The applicants contested this argument.
17. 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 (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
18. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present cases (see Frydlender, cited above, Abramiuc v. Romania, no. 37411/02, § 130, 24 February 2009).
19. In the present cases, having regard to the length of the proceedings as mentioned in the appended table, and 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 particular, even if the applicants’ conduct was not beyond reproach, the Court considers that the judicial authorities were responsible for most of the delays (see, mutatis mutandis, Beaumartin v. France, 24 November 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-B). In the light of its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in these cases the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
20. Referring to Articles 2, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained of further aspects related to the above proceedings.
21. Having considered the applicants’ submissions in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.
22. It follows that these complaints are 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
23. 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.”
A. Damage
24. The applicants have submitted the following claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage:
No.
Application no.
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
1.
29292/02
EUR 408,000
EUR 2,000,000
2.
32538/05
EUR 15,000
EUR 95,000
3.
24265/07
EUR 24,000
EUR 20,000
4.
21985/08
EUR 86,869
EUR 10,000
25. The Government contested these claims.
26. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects these claims.
27. On the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage.
Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them the following amounts under that head:
- EUR 3,200 to the applicant in application no. 29292/02;
- EUR 2,000 to the applicant in application no. 32538/05;
- EUR 3,900 to the applicant in application no. 24265/07;
- EUR 1,600 to the first applicant in application no. 21985/08.
B. Costs and expenses
28. With the exception of the applicant in application no. 32538/05, the applicants have submitted claims for costs and expenses. Regard being had to the documents submitted and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the following sums covering costs under all heads:
No.
Application no.
Amounts claimed
Amounts supported by documents
Amounts granted
1.
29292/02
EUR 40,851.11
EUR 8,419
EUR 200
2.
32538/05
No claims
n/a
n/a
3.
24265/07
EUR 2,000
RON 1,370
(EUR 333)
EUR 100
4.
21985/08
EUR 9,376
RON 6,053
(EUR 1,473)
EUR 200
C. Default interest
29. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings inadmissible in respect of the second applicant in application no. 21985/08;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible in respect of all the other applicants;
4. Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 29292/02;
(ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage to the applicant in application no. 32538/05;
(iii) EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 (one hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the applicant in application no. 24265/07;
(iv) EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 (two hundred euros) for costs and expenses to the first applicant in application no. 21985/08.
(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;
8. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix 1
No.
Case no. and date of lodging
Applicant’s Details
Length of the proceedings
Subject Matter
1.
29292/02
18 July 2002
Sari-Charlotte GLASBERG
Born in 1940 and residing in Berlin, Germany
5 November 1993 (20 June 1994) -
7 October 2004
9 years and 4 months
Levels: 2 (before 3 courts)
Proceedings regarding ownership over a previously nationalised immovable property.
2.
32538/05
2 September 2005
Gheorghe MIHAI
Born in 1947 and residing in Bucharest
22 April 2003 - 10 April 2009
6 years
Levels: 2 (before 3 courts)
Proceedings brought by the applicant against a third party seeking the annulment of the decision to fire him.
3.
24265/07
24 April 2007
Constantin CHIRILA
Born in 1931 and residing in Vicovu de Sus, county of Suceava; represented by Mr V. Schipor.
1 July 1992 (20 June 1994) -
8 December 2006
12 years and 6 months
Levels: 3
Action seeking ownership over immovable property.
4.
21985/08
21 December 2003
S.C. Bălaşa S.R.L., a private company headquartered in Pitesti, represented by the second applicant, Ion BALASA, born in 1941 and residing in Prislopu Mare, county of Argeş.
8 May 1995 - 27 June 2003
8 years and 2 months
Levels: 3 (before 11 courts)
Action for tortuous liability against public authorities.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy