CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 4 May 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 1882/10 Viorel ISTRATE against Romania lodged on 21 December 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Viorel Istrate, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Vaslui. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On an unspecified date in 2007 third parties brought proceedings against the applicant seeking inter alia the annulment of an act of succession to an inheritance worth 10,000 lei (RON) (approximately 2,325 euros (EUR)). On 6 November 2007 the Iaşi District Court, acting as a court of first instance, allowed the third parties’ action on the merits and annulled the act of succession. The court indicated that the judgment was subject to appeal. The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 17 June 2009 the Iaşi   County Court, sitting as a bench of two judges, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the merits. The court indicated that the judgment was subject to appeal on points of law (recurs). The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment. By a final judgment of 4 November 2009 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible without touching on the merits of the case. The court held that, according to the applicable legal provisions in force at the time, the applicant’s case was subject to examination at only two levels of jurisdiction, and that therefore the judgment of the Iaşi County Court was final. Moreover, it dismissed the applicant’s request to send the case back to the County Court and to order the aforementioned court to re-examine the case sitting as a bench of three judges on the ground that an inadmissible appeal on points of law prevented the Court of Appeal from reviewing the judgment on the merits. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant parts of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 282¹ § 1 “No [ordinary] appeal shall lie against judgments rendered by the courts of first   instance in (...) civil cases where the subject matter of the litigation amounts to less than RON   100,000.” Article 299 § 1 “Judgments not subject to [an ordinary] appeal (...) are subject to an appeal on points   of law.” Article 312 § 3 taken together with Article 304 point 1 “The court adjudicating on an appeal on points of law shall quash the judgments of the lower courts where such judgments were delivered by courts not sitting in the judicial formation prescribed by law.” 1.     The relevant part of the Administration of Justice Act (Law   no.   304/2004), as in force at the material time, reads as follows: Section 54(2) “ Appeals shall be examined by benches of two judges, and appeals on points of law by benches of three judges.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the composition of the bench delivering the judgment of the Iaşi County Court was not in accordance with the law. Moreover, the Iaşi Court of Appeal had unlawfully dismissed his request to send the case back to the County Court and to order the aforementioned court to re-examine the case sitting as a bench of three judges.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Taking into consideration the composition of the bench of judges, was the Iaşi County Court, which delivered the judgment of 17 June 2009, a “tribunal established by law” within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?