CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 13 February 2020 Published on 2 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9348/19 Dumitru PANDIU against Romania lodged on 1 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings taken against the applicant by a private party on 23 November 2010 seeking the cancelation of an invention patent owned by him. The proceedings ended by the final   judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 22 May 2018 (made available to the applicant on 6 August 2018) allowing the private party’s action after two sets of proceedings involving three levels of jurisdiction. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention the applicant alleged that both (i) the time taken by the Bucharest Court of Appeal from 29   November 2016 to 5 February 2018 to draft the reasons of its judgment delivered on the former date and (ii) the overall length of the proceedings taken against him were excessive. Invoking the same article of the Convention the applicant further alleged that the proceedings taken against him were unfair because the president of the bench of judges which delivered the final judgment of 22 May 2018 lacked impartiality as she had already delivered a judgment on the merits of the case on appeal and the application for the removal of the judge in question from the bench was dismissed without any reasons being given for this decision.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the proceedings taken by the private party against the applicant in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 of the Convention?   2.     In the particular circumstances of this case, does the time taken by the Bucharest Court of Appeal to draft the judgment of 29 November 2016 fall within the overall length of the proceedings? In particular, was the time taken by the aforementioned court to draft the judgment in question compatible with the right to obtain a judgment within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations as required by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s appeal on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice dealt with by an impartial tribunal?