THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33486/13
METALO CHIMICA SOCIETATE COOPERATIVĂ MEȘTEȘUGĂREASCĂ
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2013,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Metalo Chimica Societate Cooperativă Meșteșugărească, is a craftsmen cooperative company registered in Romania with its seat in Râmnicu Valcea. The applicant company was represented before the Court by Mr A. Trifu, manager and president of the board of directors.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 June 2006 civil proceedings were instituted against the applicant company by private parties for inter alia, recovery of possession of a plot of land. The proceedings came to an end on 19 November 2012 when the Pitești Court of Appeal delivered the final decision.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings in which it was involved.
THE LAW
Complaining of the length of the civil proceedings the applicant invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government stated that the application was submitted in the name of the applicant company by someone who did not make proof of his standing as legal representative. They argued that no document was submitted to the Court that clearly indicates the fact that the said person, namely Mr A. Trifu who claimed to be manager and president of the board of directors, was acting on behalf of the applicant company (i.e. power of attorney).
The Government contended also that by information received from the Trade Register Office, Mr A. Trifu ceased to be manager and president of the board of directors of the company on 19 May 2013, submitting the excerpt enlisting all the details of the company.
Thus, the Government maintained that the applicant company is not formally represented in the proceedings before the Court and the application should therefore be rejected.
The applicant company did not submit any response or comments regarding these allegations.
The Court reiterates that, in cases where applicants choose to be represented before the Court, it is essential for representatives to demonstrate that they have received specific and explicit instructions from the applicants on whose behalf they purport to act (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009, and Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10449/08, 13 September 2011). Where the case files did not contain a power of attorney or a document in which the applicants themselves had indicated that they wished the stated representative to lodge an application with the Court on their behalf, the Court considered that such cases should be rejected for want of an “applicant” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention and it declared them inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, 29 April 2010 and Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, § 14, 15 May 2012).
In the present case, the Court notes that the application was lodged in the name of the applicant company with the Court on 16 May 2013 and signed by Mr A. Trifu, in his said quality of manager and president of the board of directors and using the seal of the company. The Court also notes that even though the excerpt of the Trade Register Office submitted by the Government confirmed that Mr A. Trifu was the manager and president of the board of directors at the date of introduction of the application, it also showed that three days after that date, namely on 19 May 2013 he ceased to have such a standing. Thus, even assuming that he was entitled to submit the application before the Court on behalf of the company, he can no longer be regarded as the company’s representative as from 19 May 2013.
Furthermore, the Court notes that no information on the appointment of another representative was received from the applicant company or from Mr A. Trifu throughout the whole stage of proceedings before the Court.
The Court takes the view that the applicant company’s locus standi in the proceedings before the Court persisted only as long as the legal representative of the company had indeed such standing. In case of lack of representation and clear intent to stand before the Court, the applicant company cannot be regarded as wishing to have an application examined by the Court.
Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, it follows that the application must be rejected for being incompatible ratione personae, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 February 2015.
Marialena TsirliDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy