CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 juin 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s14896025 { width:20.27pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F18ABB { width:189.31pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 10958/05 and 19351/06 by Viorel SANDU and Cătălin Nicolae ŢENEA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   June   2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 15   March 2005 and 2   May   2006 respectively, Having regard to the observations submitted by the Romanian Government and by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Romanian nationals whose names and further identity information are indicated in the appended table. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Răzvan ‑ Horaţiu   Radu from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Both applicants were the victims of assault perpetrated by private   persons. They lodged criminal complaints and joined the proceedings as civil parties in view of obtaining compensation. Details as to the proceedings are included in the appended table. COMPLAINTS 1.     Relying on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention both applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. 2.     Relying on Article   3 of the Convention, both applicants further complained about the effectiveness of the investigations. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similarity of the legal issues raised by these applications the Court finds it appropriate to join them. B.     Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings The applicants 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. In the present cases the proceedings have lasted for (i)   five   years and ten   month for three   levels of jurisdiction in respect of application no.   10958/05; and (ii)   four   years and ten   months for two   levels of jurisdiction in respect of application no.   19351/06. Out of this total length, both cases were pending for more than three   years before the prosecutor’s office. 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). Turning to the facts of the present cases, the Court notes that the allegations of assault did not raise particularly complex aspects for the authorities. The Court also notes that the applicants’ interest was of obtaining compensation, therefore they were not criminally charged or under any risk of criminal sanctions. Furthermore, even if the cases were pending for more than three years before the prosecution authorities, there   were no significant periods of inactivity. The prosecution heard witnesses requested by the parties, ordered forensic medical reports and dealt with the complaints of the applicants in relation to the conduct of the investigation. Moreover, the Court finds that the domestic courts disposed of the cases promptly, without delays, therefore making up for the period the cases were analysed by the prosecution (see Ž. v. Latvia , no.   14755/03, §   84-86, 24   January   2008; per   a   contrario Estrikh v.   Latvia , no.   73819/01, §   141, 18   January   2007). It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Other alleged violations of the Convention Relying on Article   3 of the Convention, both applicants further complained about the effectiveness of the investigations. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these   complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no   appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these   provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35   §§   1, 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No. Case no. and date of lodging Applicant’s Details Length of the proceedings Subject Matter 1. 10958/05 15 March 2005 SANDU Viorel Romanian citizen, born on 2   February   1983 in Filipeşti de Târg, residing in Filipeşti de Târg, Romania, represented by Sandu   Luminiţa and Mitrică Marian Beginning:   14   February   2002 (the date when the applicant lodged the criminal complaint and joined the proceedings as a civil party) End:   11   December   2007 (judgement of the Piteşti Court of Appeal) Length: 5 years and 9 months Criminal complaint against two third parties for assault (Article 182 of the Romanian Criminal Code). The prosecutor issued the indictment act on 25   March   2005. By a final decision of 11   December   2007, the Piteşti Court of Appeal convicted one of the third parties for assault and sentenced him to two years of imprisonment and the payment of RON   50,000 as moral damages to the applicant. 2. 19351/06 2 May 2006 ŢENEA Nicolae Cătălin, Romanian citizen, born on 16   February   1972, in Slatina, residing in Bucharest, Romania On 14   January   2003 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint. Beginning:   24   February   2003 (the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party) End: 23   January   2008 (the judgement of the Bucharest District Court) Length : 4 years, 10 months Criminal complaint against a third   party for assault (Article 181 of the Romanian Criminal Code). On 14   March   2006, the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the decision of discontinuing the criminal investigations against the third party. By a judgement of 16   March   2007 the Bucharest District Court dismissed as out of time the applicant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the criminal investigation. The Bucharest District Court’s judgement was upheld on appeal by a final judgement of the Bucharest County Court rendered on 23   January   2008.