Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 140
April 2011
Ştefănescu v. Romania (dec.) - 11774/04
Decision 12.4.2011 [Section III]
Article 35
Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Disadvantage characterised by low level of claim made to domestic courts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: inadmissible
Facts – Following the Energy Board’s refusal to supply information about its budget, its sources of funding, how many people it employed, etc., the applicant took legal action to oblige it to communicate the information – which was of public interest – in writing, as required by law. She also sought about EUR 125 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage she considered she had sustained as a result of the Energy Board’s reaction to her request. In February 2003 the first-instance court allowed her application in part and ordered the Board to communicate the information concerned. It rejected her claim for damages, however, on the grounds that she had not provided any proof of the damage allegedly sustained. In a final judgment of October 2003 a court of appeal rejected the applicant’s claim and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
Law – Article 35 § 3 (b)
(a) Significant disadvantage – What mattered when examining whether or not the applicant had suffered a significant disadvantage was the damage allegedly suffered because the domestic courts had – wrongly, in her opinion – rejected her claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, the applicant had not indicated, either before the domestic courts or before the Court, in what manner the Board’s refusal to communicate the requested information had affected her personally. The only indication of the significance of the disadvantage she had allegedly sustained was the amount she had claimed before the domestic courts in respect of non-pecuniary damage, namely EUR 125, which was undeniably a relatively modest sum. That being so, the Court considered that the applicant had not suffered a significant disadvantage.
(b) Examination of the application on the merits – As the Court had already, on several occasions, addressed the legal question raised in the instant case, in judgments which could give the domestic courts guidance on the matter, respect for human rights did not require further examination of this complaint.
(c) Case duly considered by a domestic tribunal – The applicant’s case had been examined on the merits at first instance and on appeal. The courts had even allowed the applicant’s request and ordered the Energy Board, in adversarial proceedings, to divulge the requested information. That being so, it could not be said that the applicant’s case had not been duly considered.
The three conditions set out in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 14 having thus been met, the complaint was declared inadmissible under that provision.
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