FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17127/08
Ion NICUŢ
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 June 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Iulia Motoc, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2008,
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, Mr Ion Nicuţ, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Domneşti. He was represented before the Court by Ms C. Muraru, a lawyer practising in Piteşti.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 25 May 2006 A., an insurance company, brought civil proceedings against the applicant seeking reimbursement of the compensation it had paid to him for the loss incurred when his business site had burned down on 25 March 2005. The insurance company believed that the applicant had prevented the military firefighters from intervening, giving preference to civilian firefighters, who were less qualified and less equipped for the intervention. In its view, the applicant’s refusal had considerably increased the damage sustained. The case was heard by the Argeş County Court.
5. On 18 October 2006 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to hear witnesses on behalf on his client, to prove that he had not been responsible for the fire and had not prevented the firefighters’ intervention. The court dismissed the application, on the grounds that the deadline set by law to introduce evidence had already expired; it also noted that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had participated in the hearing where the parties had been expected to propose evidence. The applicant did not contest those findings. The court reiterated that according to the applicable law, namely Article 138 § 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), at that stage of the proceedings it could only allow the application to introduce new witness evidence if the witnesses were present before it, so that the proceedings would not be further delayed.
6. On 22 November 2006 the County Court found in favour of the insurance company and ordered the applicant to reimburse the indemnity received. The court established that the applicant had negligently left the kilns on without supervision, and that he had called the civilian firefighters and subsequently denied access to military firefighters when the latter had also arrived at the site. The court relied on a police report of 26 March 2005 describing the events, including the applicant’s opposition to the intervention of the military firefighters, and on witness testimonies heard by the court in the applicant’s presence.
7. The applicant appealed and sought to bring evidence to prove that he had not opposed the intervention of the military firefighters. He added that in any case, military firefighters were authorised by law to intervene even in a case of opposition.
8. On 31 January 2007 the Piteşti Court of Appeal dismissed the application to submit more evidence, on the grounds that the County Court had already found that the applicant had not observed the time-limits for submitting evidence.
9. On 6 February 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s arguments concerning the firefighters’ intervention.
10. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs), arguing that the Court of Appeal had failed to give reasons for dismissing his application to submit more evidence.
11. In a final decision of 3 October 2007 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law, finding that the reasons given by the applicant did not belong to the closed list of grounds for appeal on points of law expressly provided by the CCP. The High Court also considered that the lower courts had correctly interpreted the facts of the case and the applicable law.
B. Relevant domestic law
12. Under Articles 112, 115 and 132 of the CCP in force at the relevant time, an application to submit evidence may be submitted in the initial claim (cererea de chemare în judecată), the counterclaim (întâmpinare) or at the first hearing before the court when the parties have been legally summonsed to appear (la prima zi de înfăţişare). If the request for evidence is not submitted within these time-limits, under Article 138 of the CCP the application may be accepted, inter alia, “when hearing the evidence does not cause delays in the proceedings”.
COMPLAINT
13. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings initiated against him had not been fair, in so far as the courts had not allowed him to bring evidence in support of his allegations.
THE LAW
14. The applicant alleged that the civil proceedings against him had not been fair. He relied on 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 ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
A. The parties’ submissions
15. The applicant reiterated that the courts had infringed his right to bring evidence in support of his allegations, thus failing to ensure the fairness of the proceedings.
16. The Government contended that the domestic courts had correctly applied the law and had given relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions. They reiterated that it was not the Strasbourg Court’s function to deal with errors of fact and law allegedly committed by a domestic court unless and in so far as they may have infringed the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.
B. The Court’s assessment
17. The Court reiterates that it is not its task to take the place of the domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. This applies in particular to the interpretation by courts of rules of a procedural nature such as time-limits governing the filing of documents or lodging of appeals. The Court’s role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see, among other authorities, Yagtzilar and Others v. Greece, no. 41727/98, § 25, ECHR 2001‑XII). Moreover, the Court should not act as a fourth instance and will not therefore question under Article 6 § 1 the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 90, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
18. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that, before the first instance, the applicant failed to observe the procedural rules concerning evidence: he did not propose evidence within the initial
time-limits and did not bring his witnesses forward on the day of the hearing (see paragraph 5 above). Moreover, he did not seek to have the time-limits for bringing evidence reset, and did not explain his and his lawyer’s absence from the hearing where the parties were expected to propose evidence.
19. The Court is satisfied that the applicant’s plea was examined by the domestic courts, which gave reasons for dismissing it (see paragraphs 5, 8 and 11 above). Nothing in the file indicates that the domestic courts’ examination was arbitrary or unreasonable. Therefore, the Court sees no reason to invalidate the interpretation of domestic legislation by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bobîrnac v. Romania, no. 61715/11, § 35, 12 July 2016). Lastly, the Court notes that the decisions taken were based, inter alia, on the statements of witnesses heard in the applicant’s presence (see paragraph 6 above).
20. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
21. Accordingly, the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with 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 20 July 2017.
Andrea TamiettiPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy