CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C23B4C7 { width:6.99pt; display:inline-block } .sE9FED4F7 { width:166.58pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 27064/05 Dan STROE against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   September 2013 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Ján Šikuta,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Dan Stroe, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Buzău. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 17 June 1987 the Buzău County Tourist Board (“the Local Board”) issued the applicant with a written confirmation acknowledging that he had been a certified tourist guide since 1981 and that his most recent certification dated from May 1987. 5.     On an unspecified date the applicant, who is also a professor, lodged an application with the National Tourist Board attached to the Romanian Ministry of Transport, Construction and Tourism (“the Ministry”) for a certificate of tourist guide, required as a prerequisite condition for him to be able to work as a tourist guide under the terms of Government Decision no.   305/2001 on the certification and use of tourist guides. 6.     By letter of 14 January 2004 the Ministry informed the applicant that the written confirmation that he had attended professional training courses for tourist guides submitted by him in support of his application for a certificate of tourist guide had been signed by S.C. V.T. S.R.L., a private tourist agency, and not by the Local Board as he had claimed. Consequently, the Ministry asked him to submit the original written confirmation issued by the authorised professional training provider, namely the Local Board, for the period 1986-1987. 7.     In his application to the Court the applicant expressly stated that even after he had submitted the required document to the Ministry his application for authorisation to work as a tourist guide was dismissed. In addition, he provided the Court with a scanned copy of the original version of the written confirmation issued by the Local Board on 17 June 1987. 8.     On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the National Tourist Board, seeking a court order to force them to issue him with a certificate of tourist guide and to pay damages in the amount of 15,000,000 lei (ROL) (equivalent to 364 euros (EUR)). He argued that although he had successfully completed professional training courses for tourist guides, the authorities were unwilling to issue him with the certificate of tourist guide. 9.     By a judgment of 19 October 2004 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s action in part and ordered the National Tourist Board to grant the applicant the certificate of tourist guide. It held that the written confirmation issued by the Local Board on 17 June 1987 acknowledged that the applicant was a certified tourist guide. Consequently, it considered that the applicant had proved that he was qualified as a tourist guide, and that he had obtained a qualification certified by an authorised training provider for tourist guides (the Local Board) between 1986 and 1987. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim for damages as without merit, on account of the fact that the applicant had not proved that he had suffered the damage claimed. Both parties appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. The applicant argued that his claim for damages had been wrongfully dismissed by the first-instance court. 10.     By a final judgment of 18 January 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as groundless. It allowed the National Tourist Board’s appeal on points of law and quashed the decision of the first-instance court in respect of the remainder of the applicant’s action. The court held that in supporting his claim the applicant had relied on a written confirmation issued by S.C. V.T. S.R.L. attesting that he had attended professional training courses for tourist guides and that he was certified. As he had failed to submit before the court a certificate of qualification which indicated that he had successfully completed a professional training course organised by an authorised institution and given that the copy of the written confirmation he had attached to the file could not substitute for such a certificate, the first-instance court had wrongfuly allowed the applicant’s action. The court did not make any express reference to the written confirmation issued by the Local Board on 17   June   1987. 11.     In his application to the Court, the applicant stated that the dismissal of his action against the National Tourist Board had entailed substantial financial losses. The applicant did not provide further details in respect of this statement and there is no evidence in the file that the applicant incurred any damage. B.     Relevant domestic law 12.     Section 2(3) of Government Decision no. 305/2001, in force from 21   May 2001 and as amended by Government Decision no. 61/2003, on the certification and use of tourist guides provides that Romanian citizens can work as a tourist guide once they have been issued with a certificate of tourist guide by the Romanian Ministry of Tourism on the basis of a certification of qualification obtained after successfully completing a professional training course organised by the National Centre for Tourism Learning or by any other authorised training provider. 13.     Section 9 of Government Decision no. 305/2001 provides that the certificate of tourist guide obtained by tourist guides before the entry into force of the decision continue to be valid. COMPLAINTS 14.     Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial before the highest domestic court inasmuch as it had dismissed his action by relying on the incorrect finding that he had failed to submit a certificate issued by an authorised training provider for tourist guides attesting that he was a trained and qualified tourist guide. 15.     Citing Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the dismissal by the domestic courts of his action against the National Tourist Board had entailed significant financial losses for him, as he had consequently been unable to work as a tourist guide. THE LAW A.     Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention 16. The applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial before the Court of Cassation inasmuch as the said court had dismissed his action by relying on an incorrect finding. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 1.       The parties’ submissions 17.     The Government submitted that while the domestic legislation in force at the relevant time had expressly provided that the certificates of tourist guides obtained by the said guides prior to the entry into force of the relevant legislation remained valid, no such comparable provision existed for previously obtained certificates of qualification. 18.     The Government contended that the court of final appeal had examined the evidence submitted by the applicant, in particular the written confirmation issued by the Local Board. They argued that after that court had examined the written confirmation issued by S.C. V.T. S.R.L. in its reasoning, it had subsequently turned its attention to the written confirmation issued by the Local Board in 1987 and concluded that it could not amount to a certificate of qualification. In the Government’s opinion, the court of final appeal’s reasoning clearly referred to the written confirmation issued by the Local Board in 1987. They noted that this was the sole document of which the applicant only had a copy, as it appeared that the original written confirmation issued by S.C. V.T. S.R.L. had been submitted by him to the Court of Cassation. 19.     They argued that although the reasoning of the Court of Cassation was succinct, it was nonetheless clear and flowed directly from the correspondence between the applicant and the Ministry, the latter having asked the applicant to submit in original form proof issued by the authorised training provider confirming that he had attended professional traning courses for tourist guides, which was a prerequisite condition for obtaining a certificate of tourist guide. 20.     The applicant disagreed with the Government’s arguments. He argued that the written confirmation issued by the Local Board in 1987 had amounted to a certification of qualification within the meaning of Government Decision no. 305/2001. In addition, although he had submitted the original version of the said certificate of qualification to the domestic authorities, the said document had been ignored by Court of Cassation, even though the Ministry had previously acknowledged that the Local Board had been an authorised professional training provider. 2.       The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 21.     The Court reiterates that the effect of Article 6 § 1 is, amongst other things, to place a “tribunal” under a duty to conduct a proper examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment of whether they are relevant for its decision, given that the Court is not called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (see Perez v.   France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR   2004 ‑ I, and Buzescu v.   Romania , no. 61302/00, § 63, 24 May 2005). Nevertheless, although Article   6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands , 19 April 1994, §§ 59 and 61, Series A no. 288, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II). The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain , 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A nos. 303-A; Hiro Balani v. Spain , 9 December 1994, § 27, Series   A 303-B; and Helle v.   Finland , 19 December 1997, § 55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII). (b)     Application of the above principles to the present case 22.     The Court notes that the applicant had the opportunity to argue his case before the domestic courts and to make oral and written submissions in support of his claim, submitting in particular that he had successfully completed professional training courses for tourist guides and had therefore fulfilled the condition set by law to be issued with a certificate of tourist guide. In addition, it appears that he was allowed to submit evidence to support his arguments, including the written confirmation issued by the Local Board in June 1987. 23.     In dismissing the applicant’s claim, the court of final appeal held that the applicant had failed to submit before it a certificate of qualification indicating that he had successfully completed a professional training course organised by an authorised institution. While the said court did not make any express reference to the written confirmation issued by the Local Board in June 1987 and its reasoning is rather succint, it does not appear from the available evidence that the said court ignored the document relied on by the applicant when formulating its reasons. In addition, having regard to the wording of the written confirmation in question, the Court does not consider that the conclusion reached by the court of final appeal bears any appearance of arbitrariness. 24.     Having regard to all the evidence adduced, the Court finds no indication that the court of final appeal failed to duly consider the arguments and evidence put forward by the applicant as regards his application for a certificate of tourist guide. 25.     It follows that this part of the application must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. B.     Other alleged violation of the Convention 26.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the decision of the court of final appeal had entailed significant financial losses for him (see paragraph 15 above). 27.     The Court has examined this complaint as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as it falls within its jurisdiction, the Court finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President