Communicated on 15 April 2015
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 41220/09
Ioan DÂCĂ
against Romania
lodged on 24 July 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ioan Dâcă, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Sighişoara. He is represented before the Court by Ms L.R. Boilă, a lawyer practising in Târgu Mureş.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 6 September 2001 the applicant was victim of a car accident. The car he was driving collided with a truck on a road which was wet because of rainy weather. He suffered a head injury, his face was mildly disfigured and his body functions were decreased by 30 %. The disability was permanent.
On the same day, two police officers examined the accident site. According to the applicant, they failed to collect all evidence and to report the scene accurately. The truck driver was not tested for alcohol consumption. The expert technical examination of the cars involved in the accident was not ordered. Seven witnesses were heard by the police: three persons living in the vicinity of the accident site, a driver who had witnessed the accident, the nurse who had given the first aid and a local TV crew.
Five technical expert evaluations of the dynamics of the accident were carried out during the investigations. Some experts noted the existence of shortcomings in the data gathered by the police. This data did not allow the experts to establish the facts accurately. One report concluded that both drivers were responsible for the accident (report of 15 May 2002), one found the applicant to be exclusively responsible (report of 30 October 2002), two reports excluded any guilt on his behalf (reports of 1 September 2003 and 10 October 2004, the latter with a dissenting opinion) and one report failed altogether to determine the causes of the accident.
On 24 October 2005 the truck driver was sent to trial for having unintentionally caused severe bodily harm. The prosecutor established that the truck had veered on the applicant’s side of the road.
On 20 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for compensation within the criminal proceedings, thus becoming a civil party in the proceedings. He sought 100,000 Romanian lei (RON) in respect of non‑pecuniary damages, RON 30,000 for the disability suffered, RON 30,000 for the aesthetic damage and monthly payments representing 20 % of the average salary in Romania for the additional effort he had to make in order to work after the accident.
Another technical report was adduced in the file. The experts could not determine the dynamics of the accident. They considered that the applicant’s speed could have been high, but not excessive, and that he might have tried to cut the curve in the road.
The Sighisoara District Court heard the case. It met fifteen times, on a monthly basis except for the holiday periods. The hearing was postponed four times for procedural errors (wrong citation or preliminary matters raised by the prosecutor), one time it was postponed because of court clerks’ strike, on four occasions the court heard the parties and six witnesses, a further four times the proceedings were postponed for absence of the expert reports ordered (evaluation of the damage to the applicant’s car and new evaluation of the dynamics of the accident) and once to allow the parties to get acquainted with those reports. The last meeting consisted of hearing the parties’ position. The applicant was present at all but two hearings and his counsel was never absent. The court delivered the judgment on 22 October 2007. The court weighed the evidence in the file and tried to accommodate the conflicting opinions in the expert reports. It acquitted the truck driver and dismissed the claims for compensation.
Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed. The applicant contested the manner in which the court interpreted the various findings in the expert reports and sought to adduce additional evidence. His request was refused on the ground that the evidence already in the file was sufficient. The Mureş County Court held four hearings in the case and on 21 May 2008 delivered its decision. It dismissed the appeals and thus upheld the decision rendered by the District Court.
The applicant and the prosecutor appealed on points of law. Six hearings were held by the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal and a final decision was delivered on 10 March 2009. The court of appeal partially allowed the motions. It found that the truck driver and the applicant were equally responsible for the accident. It convicted the truck driver and gave him a one year’s suspended sentence. The applicant was awarded RON 5,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and RON 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It further considered that the costs incurred by the applicant and the truck driver had to be compensated and therefore did not award any sum under this head.
On 23 March 2009 the truck driver filed for the annulment of the final decision (contestaţie în anulare) on the ground that the appeals on points of law had wrongly been allowed and that the time-limits for prosecuting the crime had been met.
The Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal allowed the action and in a final decision of 19 May 2009 it partially quashed the previous decision and ended the criminal prosecution as time-barred. The court of appeal maintained the award of damages which it found sufficient to compensate the damages sustained and considered that there were no grounds for awarding additional sums.
The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the two police agents who had investigated the accident site, but the prosecutor decided not to prosecute.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the State has not met his positive obligation to carry out an effective and speedy investigation capable of identifying the causes of the accident and bring the responsible persons to justice. In particular, he pointed to the manner in which the police agents processed the accident site and the several alleged omissions he identified in the investigation which, in his view, compromised the ensuing court proceedings.
2. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complains about the length of the proceedings in which he participated as civil party and the manner in which the courts examined and interpreted the evidence in the file. Under the same Article he complains that the county court refused to accept new evidence, thus breaching the principle of equality of arms. He further complains that the courts did not give reasons for the manner in which they established the damages.
3. Lastly, he complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the amount of damages awarded by the courts, which he finds insufficient, and about the fact that he was not awarded any sum to cover the costs incurred during the proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
2. 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?
3. Was the length of the proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, regard having had to the manner in which the domestic courts awarded him damages and their amount and to the fact that he received no compensation for the costs incurred?
If so, was that interference necessary?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy