FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LIŢĂ AND S.C. GEORGIANA IMPORT EXPORT S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 46468/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Liţă and S.C. Georgiana Import Export S.R.L. 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 7 December 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 two Romanian nationals Mr Zlate Liţă (“the first applicant”) and Ms Aneta Liţă (“the second applicant”), and by S.C. Georgiana Import Export S.R.L. (“the third applicant”) a Romanian limited liability company owned by the first and second applicants, on 11 July 2012.
2. The application was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
3. The Government submitted a unilateral declaration requesting the Court to strike the application lodged by the first and second applicants out of the list of cases.
THE FACTS
4. The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
I. COMPLAINTS RAISED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND APPLICANTS
6. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the first and second applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings. They offered to pay the first and second applicants the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would 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 undertook 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.
8. The payment will constitute the final resolution of this part of the application.
9. The first and second applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declaration.
10. The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
11. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
12. The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013).
13. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
14. In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
15. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, this part of the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
16. 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 COMPLAINT RAISED BY THE THIRD APPLICANT
17. The third applicant 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 ...”
A. Admissibility
18. The Government maintained that the third applicant’s complaint was not compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. They stated that the first and the second applicants are the sole shareholders and representatives of the third applicant, enjoying total control of the company’s shares. Therefore, the interests of all applicants are concurrent.
19. The third applicant maintained that it was part of the domestic proceedings together with the first and second applicants and that it was a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
20. The Court observes that the first and second applicants are closely identified with the third applicant. In reality, the third applicant is the first and second applicants’ company and the vehicle for their business projects. The Court therefore, whilst recalling the general principles outlined in the Agrotexim judgment (see Agrotexim and Others v. Greece, 24 October 1995, § 66, Series A no. 330‑A), considers that, in the specific circumstances of the present case and particularly given the confounding of its contractual and corporate aspects, the third applicant’s complaint is compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Kin‑Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, § 74, 20 April 2010, and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, § 21, 31 July 2003).
21. The Government’s objection hence must be rejected.
22. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
23. 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).
24. 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.
25. 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 merits of this complaint. 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.
26. This complaint disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. 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.”
28. Regard being had to the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage that may have been sustained by the third applicant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
2. Decides to strike the part of the application concerning the complaints raised by the first and second applicants out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
3. Declares the remainder of the application admissible;
4. Holds that the part of the application concerning the complaint raised by the third applicant discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
5. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the third applicant;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the third applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 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/Date of registration
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicants’ comments
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court file number
Unilateral declaration amount or amount
awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per household
(in euros)[1]
46468/12
11/07/2012
(3 applicants)
Household
Zlate Liţă
08/11/1955
Aneta Liţă
07/06/1956
29/07/2015
11/09/2015
900
S.C. Georgiana Import Export S.R.L.
17/02/1992
11/10/2004
26/01/2012
7 years, 3 months and 16 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
2482/2/2011
0
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy