Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 131
June 2010
Ionescu v. Romania (dec.) - 36659/04
Decision 1.6.2010 [Section III]
Article 35
Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Fulfilment of new three-part inadmissibility test under Protocol No. 14 – no significant disadvantage to applicant: inadmissible
Facts – The High Court of Cassation and Justice declared null and void an appeal on points of law against a decision of a district court rejecting a claim for EUR 90 in damages brought by the applicant for non-performance of a contract.
Law – Article 6 § 1: (a) Fairness – The proceedings before the district court had met the requirements of fairness.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(b) Public hearing – As regards the lack of a public hearing before the High Court of Cassation and Justice, these complaints were subsumed by that concerning the annulment of the appeal and could be addressed in the context of the right of access to a court. That complaint was not incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or its Protocols, nor was it manifestly ill-founded or an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 14. However, having regard to the entry into force of that Protocol, the Court found it necessary to examine of its own motion whether it should apply the new inadmissibility test provided for by Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as amended. The main aspect of the new test was whether the applicant had suffered any significant disadvantage. A number of dissenting opinions annexed to various judgments showed that the absence of any such disadvantage could be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant. The applicant’s alleged financial loss on account of a failure to perform a contract had been limited. The amount in issue was EUR 90 for all heads of damage, and there was no evidence that his financial circumstances were such that the outcome of the case would have had a significant effect on his personal life. In those circumstances the applicant had not suffered any “significant disadvantage” in the exercise of his right of access to a court. As regards the second aspect, respect for human rights did not require an examination of the application on the merits, as the case was now only of historical interest, following the repeal of the domestic legislation concerning the preliminary examination of the admissibility of appeals on points of law, and as the Court had already had a number of opportunities to rule on the application of procedural rules by domestic court. Lastly, concerning the third question, whether the case had been duly considered by a domestic tribunal, the applicant had been able to submit his arguments in adversarial proceedings before the district court. The three conditions of the new inadmissibility test had therefore been satisfied.
Conclusion: inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy