THIRD SECTION
Application no. 42337/07
Zsolt CZARAN
against Romania
lodged on 7 September 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zsolt Czaran, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Budapest, Hungary. He is represented before the Court by Ms Nadia Isabela Vucoiev, a lawyer practising in Arad.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 10 May 2004 the applicant retained the services of a lawyer and signed a contract of legal assistance with the said lawyer for EUR 1,500, to be paid for each level of jurisdiction. The amount represented lawyer’s fees and other expenses incurred by his legal representative with the trial the applicant decided to open against the Şepreuş Mayor’s Office for the recovery of property rights over land.
On an unspecified date the applicant, assisted by his chosen legal representative won the case opened against the Şepreuş Mayor’s Office.
On 28 June 2005 the applicant paid his legal representative a total amount of EUR 4,500 as required by their agreement of 10 May 2004.
On 6 July 2006 the applicant brought proceedings against the Şepreuş Mayor’s Office seeking the recovery of the trial expenses incurred by him during the proceedings for recovery of land opened against the said Mayor’s Office, in particular the amount of EUR 4,500.
By a final judgment of 8 March 2007 the Arad County Court, sitting as a second instance court, dismissed the applicant’s action of 6 July 2006. It held that according to the legal assistance contract signed by the applicant with his legal representative on 10 May 2004 he had not agreed to pay EUR 1,500 for each level of jurisdiction and consequently the said amount could not be considered to have been generated by the various stages of the trial and was rather a success fee paid by him to his lawyer. Lastly it noted that the proceedings lodged by the applicant before it were exempted from judicial tax. The applicant brought extraordinary appeal of annulment proceedings (contestaţie în anulare) against the judgment. He argued inter alia that although the County Court noted that the proceedings lodged before it were exempted from judicial tax it failed to order ex-officio the return of the said tax paid by him.
By a final judgment of 27 September 2007 the Arad County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of annulment as ill-founded. It held that according to Article 23 (4) of Law no. 146/1997 on judicial tax in cases where the proceedings were exempted from judicial tax and the said tax had already been paid, the party had to request the return of the tax. In the applicant’s case, he could do so by opening a separate set of proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not have a fair hearing before the domestic courts inasmuch as the said courts dismissed his action seeking the recovery of the trial expenses incurred by him by relying on the incorrect finding that he did not pay the legal fees and other expenses demanded by his legal representative for each level of the trial’s jurisdiction. In addition, although the action seeking the recovery of the trial expenses incurred by him was exempted from judicial tax, the Arad County Court failed to order the return of the said tax paid by him even if it could have allegedly done so ex-officio.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, did the domestic courts conduct a proper examination of the submissions and evidence raised by him, before dismissing his action seeking the recovery of the trial expenses incurred by him, while relying on the finding that he did not pay the legal fees and other expenses demanded by his legal representative for each level of the trial’s jurisdiction?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy