CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 juillet 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCED75C42 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9E75B192 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDCDAE718 { margin-top:5pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7C7CF5 { width:6.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2680E62 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s54FAB3C5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s412A3A4A { margin-top:11pt; margin-bottom:11pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD1FAFF19 { margin-top:11pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s57221CB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1B7322F { width:29.74pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD84024D { width:33.08pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s97B72AD6 { width:30.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s51003300 { width:28.63pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s308FBE0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFCF63115 { width:173.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     THIRD SECTION             CASE OF GEORGEL AND GEORGETA STOICESCU v. ROMANIA   (Application no. 9718/03)             JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   26 July 2011     FINAL   26/10/2011     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2011, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 9718/03) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian nationals, Mr Georgel Stoicescu and Mrs Georgeta Stoicescu, on 10 January 2001. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan Horaţiu Radu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicants alleged, in particular, a breach of their rights guaranteed by Article 3, 8 and 6 of the Convention. 4.     On 11 May 2006 the Court declared the application inadmissible in respect of the applicant Georgel Stoicescu and decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government solely in respect of the applicant Georgeta Stoicescu. Under the provisions of former Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility. 5.     On 10 September 2008 Mr Georgel Stoicescu informed the Court that his wife, Mrs Georgeta Stoicescu, had died on 29 December 2007 and that he wished to pursue the proceedings as her legal heir. For practical reasons, Mrs Georgeta Stoicescu will continue to be called “the applicant” although this qualification should be attributed to her heir (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, §   1, 28 September 1999). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1929. She was retired and living in Bucharest before her death on 29 December 2007. 7.     On 24 October 2000 the applicant, aged 71 at the time, was attacked, bitten and knocked to the ground by a pack of around seven stray dogs in front of her home in the Pajura neighbourhood, a residential area in Bucharest. As a result of the fall, the applicant suffered a head injury and fractured her left thigh bone which required four days’ hospitalisation in the CFR Hospital in Bucharest. After being discharged from hospital she was prescribed medical treatment which proved to be too expensive for her. 8.     Following the incident, the applicant started suffering from amnesia and shoulder and thigh pains and had difficulty walking. In addition, she lived in a constant state of anxiety and never left the house for fear of another attack. By the year 2003 she had become totally immobile. 9.     At the time of the incident the applicant and her husband were retired and their entire monthly income amounted to the equivalent in Romanian lei (ROL) of 80 euros. They claim that this amount was wholly insufficient for her medical treatment, and that they had to live at subsistence level. As a result, the applicant had lost weight. 10.     The applicant’s state of health continued deteriorating with the result that two and a half years after the incident, on 4 June 2003, she was declared disabled by a medical panel of the Bucharest Local Council and was offered financial aid and free access to medical assistance and medicines. 1.     The civil action for damages against the Bucharest City Hall 11.     On 10 January 2001 the applicant, represented by her husband, filed a civil action with the Bucharest District Court ( Judecătoria Sectorului 1 ) requesting damages of ROL 100,000,000 (EUR 4,000) under the provisions of the Civil Code on civil liability for torts, and claiming that, as a result of the attack, she had become disabled. The applicant filed the action against the Bucharest Mayor’s Office because, according to the words embossed on the stamp used on a letter from the Animal Control Agency ( Administratia pentru Supravegherea Animalelor - ACA), the latter was a body under the authority of the Mayor’s Office. 12.     At the first hearing the court noted that the applicant had not paid the statutory court fee and ordered the payment of ROL 6,145,000 (EUR 250). Being unable to pay this sum, which amounted to her entire family income for four months, the applicant paid only ROL 500,000 (EUR 20), which she borrowed from various acquaintances. 13.     By a judgment of 6 March 2001 the court declared the applicant’s civil action invalid for non-payment of the full court fee. 14.     On 19 June 2001 the Bucharest County Court ( Tribunalul Bucuresti ) allowed an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of 6 March 2001. The County Court held that the first-instance court should have decided the case within the limits of the court fee paid and that in any event, the applicant was exempted by law from paying a court fee for this type of action. The court further held that the amount already paid should have been treated as a deposit, to be returned at the end of the proceedings. With respect to the merits of the case, the court held that the ACA, a public body under the authority of the Bucharest Mayor’s Office, had indeed not taken all necessary measures to avoid endangering the lives of the population and to preserve their health and physical integrity, and had thus violated the provisions of Bucharest Municipal Council decision no. 38/1996. According to that decision, the ACA had a duty to capture, control and sterilise all stray dogs in order to prevent any danger they may pose to the life, health and physical integrity of the population. The court further held that the attack had endangered the applicant’s life and health, causing her physical and psychological suffering and depriving her of a normal life because she was so traumatised that she did not dare leave her apartment for fear of another attack. Lastly, the County Court ordered the Bucharest Mayor’s Office to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damages, within the limits of the deposit paid, namely, ROL 10,000,000 (approximately EUR 400), which was 10% of the damages claimed by the applicant. 15.     The Bucharest City Hall lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment of 19 June 2001, claiming that it did not have legal capacity as defendant because the ACA was placed under the authority of the Bucharest Municipal Council, and not the Bucharest Mayor’s Office. 16.     By a final judgment of 17 December 2001, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law and dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that it had been lodged against a party who did not have legal capacity as defendant. The court found that the ACA had been created by decision no. 38/1996 of the Bucharest Municipal Council and that therefore the latter institution was the one against which the applicant should have brought her court action. 2.     The civil action for damages against the ACA and the Bucharest Municipal Council 17.     On 28 June 2002 the applicant, represented by her husband, filed a civil action with the Bucharest District Court requesting damages of ROL   50,000,000 (EUR   2,000) from the ACA and the Bucharest Municipal Council. The applicant did not pay the court fee. 18.     On 3 December 2002 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the action, holding that the Bucharest Municipal Council did not have legal standing as defendant. With regard to the ACA, the court found that on 31   October 2001 the Municipal Council had adopted decision no. 287 by which the ACA was closed down and the control of stray dogs was transferred to the mayor’s offices of the six Bucharest districts. 19.     By a final judgment of 13 March 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Relevant legal provisions passed by the Government or Parliament 1.     General organisation of the local administration 20.     Under section 5 of the Local Public Administration Act of 1991 (Law no. 69/1991), local self-government was conferred on the local councils as legislative authorities and the mayor’s offices as executive authorities. 21.     That Act was replaced on 23 April 2001 by a new Local Public Administration Act (Law no. 215/2001). Section 21 of that Act provides: “The local public administration authorities which ensure local self-government in municipalities and towns are the municipal authorities and the local town councils as legislative authorities, and the mayors’ offices as executive authorities.” 2.     The services in charge of stray dogs 22.     Section 39 of Law no. 60 of 29 October 1974 provided that the local authorities of each department were in charge of ensuring proper veterinary activity and thus entitled, inter alia , to “organise the capture and destruction of stray dogs”. 23.     Section 39 of Law no. 60/1974 was amended on 28 August 1998 to provide that the local authorities were in charge of “organising the capture of stray dogs and employing, for this purpose, specific techniques authorised by international veterinary norms”. 24.     On 13 December 2001 Emergency Decree no.155/2001 on the stray dogs management programme entered into force. Its relevant provisions provide: “1. The local councils must create, within 30 days from the entry into force of this decree, specialised services in order to manage the stray dogs situation. [...] 4. Stray dogs shall be captured and transported to the shelters of specialised services set up for [this purpose], where they will be kept for up to seven days [...]. 5. (1) Following an examination by the veterinary doctor, any stray dogs that are aggressive or suffer from chronic or incurable illnesses shall be euthanised immediately [...]. [...]. 7. (1) Dogs which have not been claimed or adopted after the expiry of the seven-day time-limit referred to in Article 4 above shall be euthanised.   [...]. ”   25.     Section 1(2) of Law no. 205/2004 on the protection of animals, which entered into force on 24 June 2004, provided that the rules governing stray dogs on the territory of Romania would be adopted by means of a specific law. 26.     On 15 January 2008 Law no. 9/2008, amending Law no. 205/2004, entered into force. It forbade, inter alia , the euthanasia of stray dogs. 27.     In November 2009 a draft Law on stray dogs was put on the agenda of Parliament. The draft, which provided, inter alia , for a duty on the authorities to capture and euthanise all stray dogs in order to preserve the safety and health of the population, was rejected by the Senate on 25   November 2009. It is currently pending before the Chamber of Deputies, without any date set for its discussion so far, according to the web page of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies. B.     Relevant specific regulations in force in the City of Bucharest 28.     Article 1 of Decision no. 38 of 2 January 1996 of the Bucharest Municipal Council on the breeding, maintenance and circulation of animals in Bucharest provides as follows: “With effect from the date of the present decision, the Municipal Knackers Service shall be renamed the Animal Control Agency, a public body with legal status functioning under the authority of the Bucharest Municipal Council and staffed by 33 to 50 employees.” 29.     Annex no.1, Chapter 1, of Decision no. 75 of 16 May 1996 of the Bucharest Municipal Council on the breeding, maintenance and circulation of animals in Bucharest provides, in its relevant parts, as follows: “a) The service provider within the Animal Control Agency has a duty to capture stray dogs on the basis of written complaints received from private or legal persons. ... c) The captured animals shall be sterilised, vaccinated, disinfested and identified in an integrated database, with the exception of those that are to be euthanised. d) Dogs shall be returned to the area in question upon request by the community (private or legal persons); these dogs shall have the protected status of community dogs ( câini comunitari ). e) Responsibility for community dogs shall be assumed by the community requesting the dogs’ return.” 30.     Article 2 of Decision no. 82 of 19 April 2001, issued by the Bucharest General Council regarding the programme for the sterilisation of stray dogs in Bucharest, provides: “Bearing in mind that the Animal Control Agency is placed under the authority of the Bucharest General Council, the analysis, supervision and monitoring of compliance with the programme for the sterilisation of stray dogs in Bucharest shall henceforth be entrusted to the commission created for this purpose by Decision no.149/2000 ....” 31.     Article 1 of Decision no. 287 of 31 October 2001 of the Bucharest Municipal Council on the improvement of the ACA’s activities provides: “The Animal Control Agency shall cease its activity with effect from 15 November 2001. From that date onwards, the organisation, control and monitoring of animals shall be undertaken by the mayor’s offices of Bucharest districts nos. 1 to 6, each within its own area of authority.” 32.     Article 1 of Decision no. 105 of 10 April 2003 of the Bucharest Municipal Council on the functioning of the ACA provides as follows: “With effect from 15 April 2003, the Animal Control Agency, as a legal person having the aforesaid purpose, shall be placed under the authority of the Bucharest Municipal Council.” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND OTHER REPORTS A.     Relevant instruments of the Council of Europe 33.     Article 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, ratified by Romania on 6 August 2004 (ETS no.125 – Strasbourg, 13 November 1987), provides: Article 12 – Reduction of numbers “When a Party considers that the numbers of stray animals present it with a problem, it shall take the appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures necessary to reduce their numbers in a way which does not cause avoidable pain, suffering or distress.   a   Such measures shall include the requirements that:   i   if such animals are to be captured, this is done with the minimum of physical and mental suffering appropriate to the animal;   ii   whether captured animals are kept or killed, this is done in accordance with the principles laid down in this Convention;   b   Parties undertake to consider:   i   providing for dogs and cats to be permanently identified by some appropriate means which causes little or no enduring pain, suffering or distress, such as tattooing as well as recording the numbers in a register together with the names and addresses of their owners;   ii   reducing the unplanned breeding of dogs and cats by promoting the neutering of these animals;   iii   encouraging the finder of a stray dog or cat to report it to the competent authority.” B.     Reports concerning the situation of stray dogs in Romania 1.     Media reports of stray dog attacks 34.     Since the mid-1990s the Romanian and foreign printed, on-line and audiovisual media have regularly reported on the large number of stray dogs on the streets and the problems that have ensued: attacks by stray dogs resulting in serious injuries to many people or even death in some cases; huge indignation caused in Romania and abroad by a number of actions taken by the authorities and with the purpose of euthanising some of the stray dogs; organisation of donation campaigns in favour of the sterilisation of stray dogs, and so on. By the year 2000, the population of stray dogs in the city of Bucharest alone numbered some 200,000. In March 2001 the mayor of Bucharest decided to have recourse to euthanasia, in the light of statistics for the city of Bucharest indicating that the population of stray dogs had doubled between 1996 and 2001; that in 2000 some 22,000 persons had received medical care following attacks by stray dogs; that from the beginning of 2001 more than 6,000 persons had been bitten by stray dogs; and that the persons most vulnerable to such attacks and seriously injured were children and elderly people. The international media widely reported on the mayor’s attempt to tackle this issue, as well as on the other solutions envisaged by candidates in local elections throughout the country, and on the criticism of euthanasia measures by certain international public figures, such as the actress Brigitte Bardot, who in 2001 had donated some 100,000 euros to the City of Bucharest for the purpose of sterilising stray dogs instead of killing them. The euthanasia campaign in Bucharest was stopped in 2003, after some 80,000 dogs had been euthanised. In 2005 the media reported that the population of stray dogs had again risen alarmingly, and that between 40 and 50 complaints of dog attacks were being registered daily by the animal control service in the Bucharest City Hall. The issue of the situation of stray dogs in Romania, as a public health issue, and the proposed ways of tackling it by legislative measures, was reportedly raised by various Romanian politicians with European Union bodies. 35.     Specific incidents were also widely and regularly covered by the media from 2000. Thus, national newspapers such as Evenimentul Zilei, Ziua and Adevărul reported on their internet pages the death of a sixty-eight-year-old Japanese businessman after being bitten by a stray dog in the centre of Bucharest and the death of a two-year-old boy and a forty-five year old schizophrenic, both bitten by stray dogs in Craiova. Several news agencies, such as Mediafax and Ziare.com , and most newspapers reported on the death in similar circumstances of a six-year-old girl and of two other elderly persons in various major cities throughout Romania. In January 2011, an elderly woman was bitten to death by stray dogs in the centre of Bucharest. 36.     According to the news agency Hotnews, the number of persons bitten by stray dogs in Bucharest has kept on increasing every year; for instance, it is reported that between November 2009 and February 2010, some 10,000 persons were bitten by stray dogs in Bucharest alone. 2.     Official statistics of the Romanian authorities 37.     The Government have not submitted any official statistics or reports on the issue of stray dogs in Romania. 38.   On 13 October 2009, the advisory body to the prefect, the Prefectural College, met and discussed, inter alia , the issue of stray dogs on the streets of Bucharest. In a statement published on the website of the Bucharest Prefect’s Office following this meeting, the prefect stated that the problem of stray dogs was not yet solved and mentioned that: “... although they have been sterilised and have an identification microchip, they can still bite and therefore pose a threat to our health, our children’s health and to visitors to Bucharest.” The Prefect of Bucharest further stated that the data received from the Institute of Infectious Diseases of Bucharest were worrying and showed that a total of 9,178 persons had been bitten by stray dogs in Bucharest during the first six months of 2009, of which 1,678 were children. He also quoted a report by the Animal Control Agency, according to which 38% of the dogs collected by that authority from the streets of Bucharest in the first half of 2009 were infested with leptospirosis, an infectious disease transmissible to humans and which can cause meningitis, liver damage and renal failure. 39.     On 2 February 2010, in a press release published on the website of the Bucharest Prefect’s Office, the same prefect stated that there were almost 100,000 stray dogs in Bucharest and that more than 10,000 people were bitten every year. 40.     In an interview of 27 April 2010 the prefect of Bucharest indicated that, according to the latest statistics, the number of stray dogs in the streets of Bucharest was between 40,   000, according to the NGOs, and 100,000, according to the local administration, that in 2009 around 7,   000 persons had been bitten in Bucharest by stray dogs, that in the first four months of 2010 the number of persons bitten by stray dogs was more than 2,000, and the costs for the treatment of these persons was about 400,000 euros per year. The prefect further indicated that he had proposed a draft law allowing the euthanasia of stray dogs in certain circumstances. THE LAW I.     ADMISIBILITY 41.     In their observations on the admissibility and merits submitted on 4 September 2006, the Government raised the preliminary objection that the applicant Georgel Stoicescu lacked victim status and requested the Court to declare the application inadmissible in his regard. 42.   The Court points out that, in its decision of 7 April 2006, it had already declared the application inadmissible with respect to the applicant Georgel Stoicescu. 43.   On 10 September 2008 Mr Georgel Stoicescu informed the Court that his wife, Mrs Georgeta Stoicescu, had died on 29 December 2007 and that he wished to pursue the proceedings as her legal heir. Having regard to the extensive case-law on this issue (see, for instance, Vocaturo v. Italy , no.   11891/85, § 2, 24 May 1991, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, §   1, 28 September 1999), the Court considers that Mr Georgel Stoicescu may continue the present application as spouse of the deceased applicant   Georgeta Stoicescu. 44.     Furthermore, the Court finds that the application, as it had been submitted by the applicant Georgeta Stoicescu, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further considers that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION 45.     Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the attack on her by a pack of stray dogs, submitting that this was due to the failure by the authorities to implement adequate measures against the numerous stray dogs in Bucharest, which were a danger for the safety of the inhabitants. The Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the present case these complaints fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant: “1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life ... 2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” A.     The parties’ submissions 46.     The applicant complained that the attack on her on 24 October 2000 by a pack of stray dogs constituted a breach of her right to physical integrity. The attack had had severe consequences for her state of health, which, having regard to her advanced age and lack of financial means to pay for medical care, had caused her serious physical and mental suffering. She alleged that the incident and its consequences were due to the lack of action on the part of the Romanian authorities to solve the problem of stray dogs and ensure the safety and health of the population. Accordingly, the State had failed in its positive obligations under Article 8 to protect the applicant’s physical and moral integrity and prevent intrusion into her private life. 47.     The Government denied that the State authorities bore responsibility for the attack suffered by the applicant. They considered that the State’s responsibility for actions that were not directly attributable to its agents could not extend to all occurrences of accidents or natural catastrophes. They relied in this connection on the cases of Oneryildiz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII), Osman v. the United Kingdom ([GC] , no.   23452/94, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII), and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania (no.   31679/96, ECHR 2000-I, 25   January 2000). More specifically, they contended that the situation of stray dogs in Romania had deep and complex causes and therefore the responsibility for incidents such as the one in the instant case lay not only with the State, but also with society (private persons and NGOs). They pointed out that in 2000, when the incident had occurred, the canine population had been protected by the NGOs for the protection of animals and could not be euthanised. It was only in 2001 that the euthanasia of dogs had been made possible, and, as a result, the Bucharest authorities, with the aid of inspectors in the field, had taken the appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of such incidents. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     General principles 48.     While the essential object of Article 8 is to protect individuals against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference since it may also give rise to certain positive obligations to ensure effective respect for the rights protected by Article 8 (see, among other authorities, X and Y v. the Netherlands , no. 8978/80, § 23, 26 March 1985). The positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, amongst others, Stjerna v.   Finland , no. 18131/91, §   38, 25   November 1994, and Botta v. Italy , no. 21439/93, §   33, 24   February   1998). 49.     The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity and that the States have a positive obligation to prevent breaches of the physical and moral integrity of an individual by other persons when the authorities knew or ought to have known of those breaches (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; and M.C. v. Bulgaria , no. 39272/98, §§ 73 and 149, ECHR 2003 ‑ XII,). The Court has also held that a positive obligation exists upon States to ensure respect for human dignity and the quality of life in certain respects (see L. v. Lithuania , no. 27527/03, § 56, 11   September 2007, and, mutatis mutandis , Pretty v. the United Kingdom , no. 2346/02, § 65, ECHR 2002-III). 50.     Furthermore, in its recent ruling in A.B. and C. v. Ireland ([GC], no.   25579/05, 16 December 2010, §§ 247-249, with further references), the Court reiterated the following principles on the notion of positive obligations: “247. The principles applicable to assessing a State’s positive and negative obligations under the Convention are similar. Regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, the aims in the second paragraph of Article 8 being of a certain relevance ( Gaskin v. the United Kingdom , 7 July 1989, § 42, Series A no. 160; and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 157). 248. The notion of “respect” is not clear cut especially as far as positive obligations are concerned: having regard to the diversity of the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States, the notion’s requirements will vary considerably from case to case ( Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 72). Nonetheless, certain factors have been considered relevant for the assessment of the content of those positive obligations on States. Some factors concern the applicant: the importance of the interest at stake and whether “fundamental values” or “essential aspects” of private life are in issue ( X and Y v. the Netherlands , 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; and Gaskin v. the United Kingdom , 7 July 1989, § 49, Series A no. 160); and the impact on an applicant of a discordance between the social reality and the law, the coherence of the administrative and legal practices within the domestic system being regarded as an important factor in the assessment carried out under Article 8 ( B. v. France , 25 March 1992, § 63, Series A no. 232 ‑ C; and Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, §§ 77-78). Some factors concern the position of the State: whether the alleged obligation is narrow and defined or broad and indeterminate ( Botta v. Italy , 24 February 1998, § 35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I); and the extent of any burden the obligation would impose on the State ( Rees v. the United Kingdom , 17 October 1986, §§ 43-44, Series A no. 106; Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, §§ 86-88).” 51.     The obligation to adopt appropriate measures must be interpreted in a way that does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities. For the Court, not every claimed risk to the physical integrity can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising. In the opinion of the Court, it must be established to its satisfaction that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life or the physical integrity of an indentified individual and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Amaç and Okkan v. Turkey , no.   54179/00, 54176/00, § 46, 20 November 2007; mutatis mutandis , Osman cited above, §§ 116 and 121, and Berü v. Turkey , no. 47304/07, § 39, 11 January   2011). 52.     Lastly, the Court has held that if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an “effective judicial system” does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victim (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no.   37703/97, §§ 90 and 94-95, ECHR 2002-VIII). 2.     Application of those principles to the present case 53.     The Court notes at the outset that the applicant was attacked, bitten and knocked to the ground by a pack of about seven stray dogs in a residential area of Bucharest. Undoubtedly, that attack and its consequences caused the applicant serious physical and psychological suffering (see paragraphs 7 to   10 above). 54.     The Court further notes that the problem of stray dogs, regularly mentioned in the media after 1989, developed dramatically and became a public health and safety issue, having regard to the large number of persons attacked and injured by these dogs (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above). 55.     Accordingly, the question to be determined by the Court is whether the facts of the case disclose a failure by the authorities of the respondent State to protect the physical and psychological integrity of the applicant, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 56.     It is not disputed between the parties that the authorities had broad and detailed information on this issue, in particular the large number of stray dogs in the city of Bucharest and the danger they represented to the physical integrity and health of the population. The data available to the authorities also confirmed the regular occurrence of such incidents in the City of Bucharest (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above). 57.     In that connection the Court notes that it was in 2001, after the occurrence of the incident in the present case, that the authorities acknowledged the special situation regarding the population of stray dogs, and on 19 April 2001 issued Decision no. 82 of the Bucharest General Council, and Emergency Decree no. 155/2001 on the stray dogs management programme, which entered into force on 13 December 2001. Both legal acts provided for stray dogs to be captured and neutered or euthanised (see paragraphs 24 and 30 above). 58.     The Court acknowledges that, even before the incident in the present case occurred, regulations were in force in Romania providing a legal basis for the creation of specific structures in charge of the control of stray dogs (see paragraphs 20, 22 and 23 above). These regulations were modified several times after the incident in 2000. The changes concerned mainly the organisation and supervision of the structures in charge of controlling the population of stray dogs, and the treatment reserved to these dogs after their capture. However, it notes that, despite these regulations, the situation continued to be critical, with several thousands of persons being injured by stray dogs in the City of Bucharest alone (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above). The Court agrees with the Government in this context that responsibility for the general situation of stray dogs in Romania also lies with civil society. 59.     It is not the Court’s task to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities in determining the best policy to adopt in dealing with problems of public health and safety such as the issue of stray dogs in Romania. In that connection it accepts that an impossible or disproportionate burden must not be imposed on the authorities without consideration being given in particular to the operational choices which they must make in terms of priorities and resources (see Osman cited above, §   116, and Hajduová v. Slovakia , no.   2660/03, § 47, 30 November 2010); this results from the wide margin of appreciation States enjoy, as the Court has previously held, in difficult spheres such as the one in issue in the instant case (see, mutatis mutandis , Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 100-101, ECHR 2003-VIII, and Oneryildiz cited above, § 107). In assessing compliance with Article 8, the Court must make an overall examination of the various interests in issue, bearing in mind that the Convention is intended to safeguard rights that are “practical and effective”. This is also true in cases where a general problem for the society reaches a level of gravity such that it becomes a serious and concrete physical threat to the population. The Court must also look behind appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of. That assessment may also involve the conduct of the parties, including the means employed by the State and their implementation. Indeed, where an issue in the general interest is at stake, which reaches a degree of gravity such that it becomes a public health issue, it is incumbent on the public authorities to act in good time, in an appropriate and consistent manner (see, mutatis mutandis , Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 168, ECHR 2006-VIII). In its assessment, the Court accepts that the measures and actions to be adopted and taken are not an obligation of result, but an obligation of means. 60.     In this context, the Court notes that the judgment of 19 June 2001 of the Bucharest County Court addressed the merits of the applicant’s complaints. It held that the Animal Control Agency, a public body, had not taken all necessary measures to avoid endangering the lives of the population and to preserve their health and physical integrity, and that the attack on the applicant had put her life and health in danger, causing her physical and psychological suffering and depriving her of a normal life on account of her fear of another attack. However, the above-mentioned judgment was quashed for procedural reasons and the applicant’s subsequent attempts to have a court decision providing her appropriate redress failed as well. 61.     Furthermore, the Court observes that, apart from arguing that society in general should bear responsibility for the current situation of stray dogs in Romania, the Government have not provided any indication as to the concrete measures taken by the authorities at the time of the incident to properly implement the existing legislative framework with a view to addressing the serious problem of public health and threat to the physical integrity of the population represented by a large number of stray dogs. Neither have they indicated whether the regulations or practices at the time of the incident or adopted later were capable of providing appropriate redress for the cases of victims of attacks by stray dogs. In this connection, the Court notes that the above mentioned situation seems to persist (see paragraphs 34 to 36 above). 62.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the lack of sufficient measures taken by the authorities in addressing the issue of stray dogs in the particular circumstances of the case, combined with their failure to provide appropriate redress to the applicant as a result of the injuries sustained, amounted to a breach of the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to secure respect for the applicant’s private life. 63.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision in the present case. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 64.     The applicant complained that by dismissing her two civil actions for damages against the Bucharest local authorities the domestic courts had breached her right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of 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 ...” 65.     The Government contested that argument. A.     The parties’ submissions 66.     The Government claimed that the fact of establishing procedural costs which were proportional to the amounts claimed in civil proceedings could not, in itself, represent an impediment to the right of access to a court. They relied on the Court’s case-law, for instance Z. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, § 93, ECHR 2001-V) and Tinnelly Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom (10 July 1998, §   72, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV). They stressed that, in any event, the applicant’s case had been dealt with on the merits by the Bucharest County Court, which had also decided that the applicant was exempted from paying court fees. The fact that the judgment of 19 June   2001 of the Bucharest County Court was later quashed did not mean that the applicant was denied the right to a court, but merely that she had not lodged her case against the correct defendant. 67.     The applicant complained that following the incident she had lived in a constant state of anxiety and was afraid to leave the house. Her psychological suffering   had been aggravated by the impossibility of obtaining compensation and the authorities’ response to her complaints, namely, the dismissal of her civil actions, the fact that she had been sent from one institution to another and had even lost the amount of money she had paid in court fees. B.     The Court’s assessment 68.   The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees everyone’s right to have his or her civil rights and obligations determined by a court. It thus enshrines a “right to a court”, of which the right of access, namely the right to apply to a court in civil proceedings, is only one aspect. However, the “right to a court” is not absolute. It lends itself to limitations since, by its very nature, it requires regulation by the State, which may select the means to be used for that purpose. However, these limitations must not restrict exercise of the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is impaired. They must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Fayed v. the United Kingdom , 21 Sept