THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 5659/04
by Aurelian Olimpiu SABĂU-POP
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2003,
Having regard to the comments submitted by Romanian Government and by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aurelian Olimpiu Sabău-Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Târgu-Mureş. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan‑Horaţiu Radu, 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 13 September 1999, the applicant was the victim of a car accident. He suffered severe arm injuries that needed several surgical interventions and left him with a permanent physical infirmity.
On 26 April 2000, the applicant joined the criminal proceedings against the driver who had caused the accident, submitting a civil claim for damages.
On 18 July 2001, the Târgu Mureş District Court convicted the driver and imposed a suspended sentence of one year imprisonment. By the same judgment, the applicant’s civil action was disjoined on the ground that the establishment of the final amount to be granted to the applicant as damages might delay the criminal proceedings.
The applicant’s civil claim was partially allowed by the Târgu Mureş District Court on 19 February 2002. The Mureş County Court allowed the applicant’s appeal by a judgment of 14 November 2002, increasing the amount of the damages awarded.
On 12 June 2003, the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal allowed the appeals on points of law of both parties, quashed the judgments of 14 November 2002 and 19 February 2002 and remitted the case to the court of first instance for re-examination. The reason for quashing the judgments was the fact that the judges of the first instance court had expressed their opinion with respect to a request of the parties before it had been subject to deliberations.
On 25 July 2003, the case was registered with the Târgu Mureş District Court who proceeded to the re-hearing of witnesses in the case. The defendant filed an application for the transfer of the proceedings on the ground of lack of impartiality of the judges of the Târgu Mureş courts. The High Court of Cassation and Justice decided by an interlocutory judgment of 26 January 2005 to transfer the case to the Alba Iulia District Court.
The Alba Iulia District Court partially allowed the applicant’s claim by a judgment of 2 June 2005. The appeal filed by the applicant was partially allowed by the Alba County Court on 11 November 2005.
The said judgment was upheld by a final judgment of the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal of 10 May 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies in relation to length of proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government contested that argument.
The period to be taken into consideration began on 26 April 2000 and ended on 10 May 2006. The Court notes that the applicant’s civil action was not analyzed by the courts prior to it being disjoined by the judgment of 18 July 2001. The proceedings have therefore lasted lasted six years and fifteen days for three levels of jurisdiction at the civil courts and one level of jurisdiction at the criminal courts.
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
On the facts of the case, the Court notes that the case concerned a car accident causing severe bodily harm, being therefore of a certain complexity. The Court also notes that the authorities dealt with the criminal aspects of the case in an efficient manner by convicting the third party on 18 July 2001, within one year and ten months from the date of the accident. Subsequently, the applicant’s civil claim was determined within four years and nine months.
The Court also notes that there were no significant delays in the proceedings to be attributed to the authorities. One single remittal for readjudication of the case, cannot amount per se to a finding of a violation (see per a contrario Cârstea and Grecu v. Romania, no. 56326/00, § 42, 15 June 2006).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant complained that he had been denied an effective remedy with respect of the alleged breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. He invoked Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
The Court recalls that Article 13 is only applicable where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of one of the rights set forth in the Convention (see see Brechos v. Greece (dec) no. 7632/04, 11 April 2006, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). In the light of its finding under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court deems that the applicant does not have an “arguable claim” for the purposes of Article 13.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy