CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Published on 6 May 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39517/20 PLOPEANU AND IONESCU LAW FIRM ( SOCIETATEA CIVILĂ PROFESIONALĂ DE AVOCAȚI PLOPEANU ȘI IONESCU ) against Romania lodged on 13 August 2020 communicated on 16 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the annulment of a final (interlocutory) decision ruling on the applicant firm’s procedural standing to bring proceedings to annul a construction permit for a landfill site. The applicant firm, a professional association of practicing lawyers from Cluj, requested the annulment of a construction permit issued for a landfill site in Pojorîta, Suceava county ( depozit ecologic Pojorîta ) because of several alleged breaches of the legal requirements aiming to protect the environment and public health, such as that establishing the minimum distance between the landfill site and the inhabited area, namely 1,000 m. On 7 February 2019 the Cluj County Court rejected the application for annulment, considering that the applicant firm lacked procedural standing and interest. The applicant firm’s appeal on points of law was allowed by a final judgment of 26 September 2019 of the Cluj Court of Appeal. The decision of 7   February 2019 was quashed, and the case was sent back to the Cluj County Court for retrial. The Court of Appeal stated that the applicant did have procedural standing and interest to contest the legality of administrative acts in the field of protection of the environment. In the meantime, while the proceedings before the Cluj Court of Appeal were pending, on 20   September 2019 the defending parties, namely the Suceava County Council and its President, submitted to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the “HCCJ”) a request to have the case transferred to a different court of appeal ( strămutare ), submitting that they had doubts about the impartiality of the judges of the Cluj Court of Appeal, as they had already given a ruling in a similar case and since one of the judges had participated to the same scientific event (legal seminar) with one lawyer of the applicant firm. This request had not led to the suspension of the main judicial proceedings. By a final interlocutory judgment of 14 November 2019, the HCCJ acceded to the request of the opposing party and decided to transfer the case to the Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal. The interlocutory judgment did not include reasons. In its judgment, based on Article 145 paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the HCCJ issued the order to “take note of the reversal of the judgment of 26 September 2019 of the Cluj Court of Appeal ( constată desfiinţată de drept decizia )”. The applicant firm complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the annulment of the final judgment of 26 September 2019, pronounced in its favour, breached the res judicata principle and that the HCCJ, which accepted the transfer request, did not provide adequate reasoning for its decision. The applicant firm maintains that the request to transfer the case to another court of appeal amounted, in fact, to an appeal in disguise and that the HCCJ did not strike a fair balance between the general interest of legal certainty and the interests of the opposing party in the proceedings, namely the Suceava County Council. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see, for example, Ivan Atanasov v.   Bulgaria , no. 12853/03, §§ 89-96, 2 December 2010, Bursa Barosu Başkanlığı and Others v. Turkey , no. 25680/05, §§ 106-129, 19 June 2018, and Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no.   53600/20, §§ 590-625, 9 April 2024)?   2.     If so, did the applicant law firm have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in so far as a final judgment pronounced in its favour on 26   September 2019 by the Cluj Court of Appeal was reversed when the High Court of Cassation and Justice accepted, on 14 November 2019, the request for transfer of the litigation to another court of appeal, without providing reasons for the transfer decision?