FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF IGNAT v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 58613/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 June 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ignat v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Iulia Motoc,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 May 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 58613/08) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Romanian national, Mr Liviu Ignat (“the applicant”), on 27 November 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms S. Nechita, a lawyer practising in Iași. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the composition of the bench which had delivered the judgment of the Iaşi County Court had not been in accordance with the law, and had therefore breached his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
4. On 20 February 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Iași.
6. On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against a third party, seeking the annulment of two sale/purchase agreements concerning an apartment.
7. By a judgment of 25 January 2007 the Iaşi District Court, acting as a court of first instance, allowed the applicant’s action on the merits and declared the two contracts null and void. The third party appealed against the judgment.
8. By a decision of 21 November 2007 the Iaşi County Court, sitting as a bench of two judges, allowed the third party’s appeal on the merits, quashed the judgment of 25 January 2007 and dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that decision.
9. By a final decision of 2 June 2008 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible, without commenting on the merits of the case. It held that, under Article 2811 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, judgments delivered by first-instance courts in respect of disputes where the subject matter of the litigation had been valued at less than one billion Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 27,000) were not subject to an ordinary appeal. The applicant had estimated the value of the disputed property to be RON 9,000. Therefore, the judgment delivered by the District Court could only be challenged by way of an appeal on points of law. Moreover, the decision of the Iaşi County Court was final, even if the County Court had erred and examined the applicant’s case in a composition of two rather than three judges.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
10. The relevant parts of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure and of the Administration of Justice Act (Law no. 304/2004), as in force at the material time, are set out in Jenița Mocanu v. Romania (no. 11770/08, 17 December 2013).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant complained that the composition of the bench delivering the decision of the Iaşi County Court had not been in accordance with the law. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
12. The Government submitted that, given the particular circumstances of the case and the procedural guarantees provided by the domestic legislation with regard to various types of appeal, the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage.
13. The applicant did not agree with the Government’s submissions.
2. The Court’s assessment
14. The Court notes that the main criterion set by Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention is whether the applicant has suffered any significant disadvantage (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010, and Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010).
15. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was involved in civil proceedings brought against a third party, where the applicant was seeking the annulment of a sale/purchase contract. In the proceedings before the Court, he valued the property in question at EUR 87,000 (see paragraph 29 below).
16. In this context, the Court does not consider that the financial impact of the matter on the applicant could be considered small or insignificant.
17. Under these circumstances, and in spite of any other arguments raised by the Government, the Court considers that the applicant cannot be deemed not to have suffered a significant disadvantage. Accordingly, it dismisses the Government’s preliminary objection.
18. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
19. The applicant alleged that the fact that the appeal on points of law which he had lodged with the domestic courts had not been examined by a bench of three judges had been unlawful under the relevant domestic legislation.
20. The Government contended that the applicant had failed to show how the overall fairness of the proceedings had been affected by the inadmissibility of his appeal on points of law, given that he had had access to two levels of jurisdiction as required by law. The merits of his case had undoubtedly been examined twice, and the presence of a third judge would not have guaranteed him a favourable outcome. Moreover, the evidence regime was stricter in proceedings concerning an appeal on points of law than in appeal proceedings.
21. The Government also argued that, according to the Court’s case‑law, the Court only considered it necessary for Contracting Parties to provide two levels of domestic jurisdiction in criminal cases.
2. The Court’s assessment
22. The Court reiterates that the phrase “established by law” in Article 6 § 1 also means “established in accordance with the law” (see Jenița Mocanu, cited above, § 37). In addition, the phrase “established by law” covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a “tribunal”, but also compliance by the tribunal with the particular rules that govern it and the composition of the bench in each case.
23. The Court further reiterates that, in principle, a violation by a tribunal of domestic legal provisions relating to the establishment and competence of judicial organs gives rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court may therefore consider whether the domestic law has been complied with in this regard (see Jenița Mocanu, cited, above, § 38).
24. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the appeal brought by the applicant against a third party was initially treated by the domestic courts as eligible for consideration at three levels of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Iaşi County Court delivered its judgment on appeal as a bench of two judges. Thereafter, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision. The Iaşi Court of Appeal then reclassified the civil claim as eligible for consideration at only two levels of jurisdiction, dismissing the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. Consequently, the decision given by the Iaşi County Court on 21 November 2007 was considered final by the Iaşi Court of Appeal (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above).
25. In this context, the Court notes that Article 54 § 2 of Law no. 304/2004 provided that domestic courts had to sit as benches composed of three judges to decide appeals on points of law lodged against the judgments of lower courts. In the present case, the Iaşi County Court sat as a bench composed of two judges in order to deal with the appeal on points of law which had been lodged before it in. The Court therefore considers that that bench, which delivered its decision on the merits of the case as both a second and last-instance court, was not composed in accordance with the domestic law in force at the material time.
26. The foregoing considerations, notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the Government in respect of the general fairness of the proceedings to which the applicant was a party, are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the domestic courts’ significant deviation from the domestic rules of civil procedure amounted to a breach of the Convention requirement for the applicant’s claim to be determined by a “tribunal established by law” (see Jenița Mocanu, cited above, § 42).
27. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this respect.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
28. 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
29. The applicant claimed 87,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, this amount representing the value of the property he had lost in the domestic civil proceedings. He also claimed EUR 50,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
30. The Government asked the Court to dismiss the applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage as there was no causal link between the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the value of the lost property. As regards the applicant’s claim in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, the Government submitted that the mere acknowledgement of a violation of the applicant’s right should represent in itself just satisfaction.
31. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
32. The applicant did not claim the reimbursement of costs and expenses which he incurred.
C. Default interest
33. 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. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 June 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş AracıKrzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy