THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 708/13
Marian VIȘAN against Romania
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 19 December 2012,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
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
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 May 2003 four of the applicants were placed in detention on remand and criminal proceedings were opened against them on charges of, inter alia, bribery. On 2 October 2003 criminal proceedings were opened against the fifth applicant on the charge of bribery.
The cases were joined and the decision on the merits was rendered on 22 July 2010 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal after its jurisdiction was established and after several exceptions of unconstitutionality were resolved. The Court of Appeal convicted the applicants to prison sentences between 2 and 4 years with a stay of execution.
The applicants appealed the decision on points of law. By final decision of 3 July 2012 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“High Court”) reduced the applicants’ prison sentences to either 1 year and 2 months or 1 year and 6 months with a stay of execution. In doing so, the High Court took note of the length of proceedings acknowledging that it had exceeded the reasonable time requirement and stating that as a consequence it convicted the applicants to prison sentences below the statutory minimum.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant Romanian legal provisions are described in the judgment in the case of Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, §§ 62-63, 68, 70-72 and 75, 26 November 2013.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings in which they were involved.
THE LAW
The Court firstly finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications.
Complaining of the length of the criminal proceedings the applicants invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government submitted that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, since on 3 July 2012 the High Court acknowledged the alleged violation of the Convention due to the excessive length of the proceedings and accordingly reduced the applicants’ sentence below the statutory minimum.
Thus, the Government maintained, the High Court both recognized that the proceedings took a long time and provided redress thereof in relation to the Convention.
The applicants disagreed, saying that while the High Court had indeed reduced their sentences, it could only be regarded as a partial redress for the breach of the Convention.
According to the Court’s case-law, mitigation of sentence alone does not in principle remedy a failure to comply with the reasonable time requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to criminal proceedings. However, this general rule might be subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66-70, Series A no. 51, Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI, Sheremetov v. Bulgaria, no. 16880/02, § 33, 22 May 2008 and Nachev v. Bulgaria, no. 27402/05, § 30, 21 December 2010).
Applying these principles in the present case, the Court notes in the first place that the High Court expressly upheld the substance of the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time.
Secondly, the Court notes that the High Court reduced, in the light of the excessive length of proceedings, the applicants’ sentences below the statutory minimum to approximately half of the initial prison sentences.
The Court is thus satisfied that the national authorities afforded adequate redress to the applicants by reducing the sentences in an express and measurable manner (see, among other authorities, Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001).
In these circumstances, the applicants can no longer claim to be victims under Article 34 of the Convention of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time, as guaranteed under Article 6 § 1.
It follows that the applications must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application No.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
708/13
19/12/2012
Marian VIȘAN
08/10/1961
Buftea
Romanian
Ion GHIGHEANU
796/13
19/12/2012
Marius LAHMAN
15/07/1967
Voluntari
Romanian
Ion GHIGHEANU
906/13
19/12/2012
Gheorghe URDUBAN
09/11/1956
Bucharest
Romanian
Ion GHIGHEANU
2521/13
19/12/2012
Constantin HUȚUPAȘU
11/07/1966
Bucharest
Romanian
Ion GHIGHEANU
31976/13
19/12/2012
Nicușor BUTUCEA
29/05/1974
Răzvad
Romanian
Ion GHIGHEANU
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy