FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15838/06
Rahila Aurora HILOTE
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Iulia Motoc,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Rahila Aurora Hilote, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Gârbovi, Ialomiţa county.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 21 June 2004 the Bucharest District Court dismissed an action whereby the applicant sought annulment of a lease contract.
5. The applicant appealed and set her lawyer’s office as the address for all judicial correspondence. Throughout the appeal proceedings she was notified by affixation at that address: in his reports on the service procedure, the court officer explained that he had not found anyone at that address and had consequently proceeded to posting the notification on the building’s main door. The applicant attended all but the last hearing in the case which took place on 21 October 2005 before the Bucharest County Court. On that date, the County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the District Court’s judgment. The decision was final.
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she had been prevented from actively participating in the appeal proceedings because the summonses for the hearings had not been properly served on her.
7. Relying on the same Article, she complained about the outcome of the proceedings.
THE LAW
8. The applicant complained about the unfairness of the civil proceedings before the Bucharest County Court, challenging the way in which the summonses had been served on her and the outcome of the case. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
9. The Government averred principally that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies. They pointed out that she had not lodged any objection to the final decision of 21 October 2005 based on the alleged unlawfulness of the service procedure. This remedy was effective, available and, if successful, would have eventually allowed the domestic courts to re‑examine the merits of the appeal.
10. The applicant contested the Government’s assertions.
11. The Court observes that in the case of S.C. Raisa M. Shipping S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 37576/05, § 25, 8 January 2013) it found that the objection in annulment constituted an effective remedy for a situation similar to that of the present case (see also Cazacu v. Romania (dec.), no. 20555/03, §§ 9 and 21, 19 June 2012). The applicant did not put forward any argument that would allow the Court to reach a different conclusion. Moreover, by not using this remedy, the applicant forfeited her chance to allow the domestic courts to re-examine the merits of her appeal and, if necessary, to change the outcome of the proceedings in question.
12. Accordingly, the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.
Andrea TamiettiPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy