FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42277/17
Valentin-Adrian CODREANU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 November 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Anne Louise Bormann, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2017,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Valentin-Adrian Codreanu, is a Romanian national, born in 1972.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of detention served between 18 February 2014 and 6 December 2016 in the Caraș-Severin County Police Station, and the Timișoara, Arad and Rahova Prisons.
On 1 October 2021 the abovementioned complaint was communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
By a letter of 1 October 2021, the applicant was informed of the Court’s decision to communicate his application to the Government. The explanatory note attached to the letter was written in the Romanian language and included, inter alia, information on the strictly confidential nature of all friendly‑settlement negotiations. The Court also provided the parties with declarations prepared by the Registry, aimed at securing a friendly settlement of the case.
On 3 February 2022 the applicant returned the declaration, duly dated and signed, thus accepting the friendly-settlement proposal and its terms. By a letter of the same date, the applicant informed the Court that he had concluded an agreement of sale and purchase of litigious rights (“contract de vânzare‑cumpărare de drepturi litigioase”) with a third party. The applicant requested that the buyer is introduced in the proceedings in order to pursue the present application.
THE LAW
Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the present application is inadmissible.
The applicant complained principally of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
The Government raised a preliminary objection on the admissibility of the present application, referring to the confidentiality of the friendly‑settlement process. Accordingly, the Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible due to the applicant’s abuse of his right to individual petition and asked the Court to strike the present case out of the list of the cases pending before the Court.
In his response to the Government’s observations, the applicant claimed that the transfer of litigious rights to a third party does not amount to an abuse of the right of individual application, nor gives any reason to strike the case out of the list of cases pending before the Court. In the applicant’s view, the buyer has a legitimate interest in pursuing the present application and his rights must be protected.
The Court notes that according to Article 39 § 2 of the Convention friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further states that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of an attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. This rule, as stipulated in the Convention and in the Rules of Court, is to be interpreted in the light of the general objective of facilitating friendly settlement and protecting the parties and the Court from any eventual pressure (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 68, 15 September 2009).
The Court has stated on multiple occasions that a breach of the confidentiality of friendly-settlement negotiations could, in certain circumstances, justify a conclusion that an application is inadmissible on the grounds of an abuse of the right of petition (see, among many others, Eskerkhanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18496/16 and 2 others, § 24, 25 July 2017, with the references cited therein; Passaris v. Romania (dec.), no. 55200/17, 23 March 2021; and Bogdan v. Romania (dec.), no. 32916/20, 27 September 2022).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court were explicitly cited and a proper procedure of friendly-settlement negotiations launched by the Registry in the applicant’s case. The explanatory note in Romanian which was enclosed with the Court’s letter of 1 October 2021 made it clear that all friendly‑settlement negotiations were strictly confidential. Therefore, the applicant ought to have been aware of this requirement and was under an obligation to have complied with it. However, shortly after the application had been communicated to the Government, the applicant revealed to third parties the details of the friendly-settlement negotiations, including those in the Court’s letters, as well as the amount proposed as compensation.
Given that the applicant did not advance any convincing justification for his conduct, the Court concludes that disclosing the details of the friendly‑settlement negotiations in the context of an agreement to sell litigious rights amounts to an intentional breach of the rule of confidentiality, which must be considered as an abuse of the right of individual application.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the present application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy