CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 2014

.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 } .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 } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s47BA2785 { width:188.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 34344/10 Stan DRAGOMIR against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   October   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 June 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Stan Dragomir, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Slobozia Conachi. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 19 September 1999 the applicant’s wife died at the Galați County Hospital during a child birth operation. 4.     On 5 February 2002 the applicant brought criminal proceedings for unintentional murder against the anaesthetist who had supervised his wife’s operation and the Galați County Hospital. On the same date he lodged a non ‑ pecuniary damage claim against the anaesthetist and the hospital on behalf of his two children. 5.     On an unspecified date in 2005 the Galați Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation opened by the applicant. The applicant appealed against the decision before the hierarchical prosecutor. 6.     By a decision of 31 March 2005 the hierarchical prosecutor allowed the applicant’s appeal, ordered the re-opening of the criminal investigation and referred the case to the Galați Police Department for further investigation. 7.     On an unspecified date in 2006 the Galați Prosecutor’s Office indicted the anaesthetist for unintentional murder and sent the case to trial. 8.     On 11 September 2006 the applicant lodged a pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage claim on his own behalf and on behalf of his children against the anaesthetist and the Galați County Hospital. 9.     By a judgment of 23 October 2009 the Galați District Court convicted the anaesthetist for unintentional murder and sentenced him to two years imprisonment, suspended. In addition, it ordered the anaesthetist and the Galați County Hospital, jointly, to pay the applicant and his children 42,500   lei (RON) (approximately 10,600 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the aforementioned defendants to pay monthly child support of RON 200 (approximately EUR   50) for each of the two children until they become of age. The defendants appealed against the judgment. 10.     By a judgment of 12 May 2010 the Galați County Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the defendants as ill-founded. The defendants appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment. 11.     By a final judgment of 11 February 2011 the Galați Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal on points of law as ill-founded. COMPLAINTS 12.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings investigating the death of his wife had been excessively lengthy both at the pre-trial and the trial stage of the proceedings on account of the authorities’ passivity. The authorities had failed for years to solve the case and the repeated adjournment of the proceedings could have made it possible for the criminal liability of the culprits to become barred by limitation ( prescrisă ). In addition, he also complained without providing any further details that the aforementioned proceedings had been unfair. 13.     Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant complained that he had suffered damages following his wife’s death. THE LAW A.     Complaints under Article 6 of the Convention 14.     The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings investigating the death of his wife had been excessively lengthy both at the pre-trial and the trial stage of the proceedings on account of the authorities’ passivity. In addition, he also complained without providing any further details that the aforementioned proceedings had been unfair. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows in its relevant part: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time ...” 1.     Length of proceedings 15.     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). 16.     The Court notes from the outset that although the applicant’s wife had died in September 1999, he initiated the criminal proceedings investigating her death only in February 2002, almost two and a half years later. In addition, he joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party only in 2006, more than six years after his wife’s death. 17.     Thus the criminal proceedings opened into the applicant’s wife’s death lasted from 5 February 2002 to 11 February 2011, whereas the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party on 11   September   2006. Consequently, the period to be taken into consideration is four years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction. 18.   The Court considers that, although the case was not complex, the time lapsed cannot be considered significant given that the perpetrators had been identified, convicted and the applicant was awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Moreover, the Court does not discern from the available evidence that the periods of inactivity were imputable exclusively to the authorities. 19.     The Court therefore considers that this part of the applicant’s complaints must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 2.     Unfairness of proceedings 20.     The Court reiterates that in determining issues of fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, it must consider the proceedings as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court ( Gennadiy Medvedev v. Russia , no. 34184/03, § 27, 24 April 2012). It is not its function to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them. The Court’s task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety, including the way in which the evidence was taken, were fair (see Ivan Stoyanov Vasilev v. Bulgaria , no. 7963/05, § 30, 4   June 2013). 21.   The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint is of a general nature and that he has failed to provide further details in respect of this part of the application. 22.     The Court also notes that according to the available evidence the applicant took active part in the proceedings before the domestic courts and availed himself of his rights to influence the outcome of the proceedings. His arguments were heard by the domestic authorities and examined by providing clear and sufficient, albeit succinct, reasons which do not appear arbitrary. 23.     The Court therefore considers that this part of the applicant’s complaints must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. B.     Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 24.     The applicant complained that he had suffered damages following his wife’s death. He invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which reads as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 25.     The Court notes that the domestic courts had allowed the applicant’s claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage following his wife’s death. In addition, he had not argued that the aforementioned court judgments had remained unenforced or that the compensation awarded to him had been insufficient. 26.     It follows that this part of the applicant’s complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar   President