CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16040/20 Florina-Elena NICOLAE against Romania lodged on 16 March 2020 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s lack of access to a court, in so far as her arguments on the merits of the case have not been examined by the appellate court. On 5 March 2005 the applicant concluded a credit contract with a lending company for an amount of 3,675.90 Romanian lei (RON, approximately 1,025 euros (EUR)) and she was granted a credit card; the reimbursement period was agreed to five years, the payment being made in sixty monthly instalments. The applicant claims to have reimbursed the whole amount, the last payment being made on an unspecified date in 2010. In 2017 forced execution proceedings were initiated against her based on the 2005 credit contract. The amount allegedly due by the applicant was of 5,115.62 RON (approximately EUR 1,140), of which 2,664.44 RON was the main debt, the remainder of the amount including interest, execution costs and other bank fees. The applicant challenged these proceedings. As a preliminary objection, she argued that the right to initiate forced execution proceedings was time-barred, because the term of three years of the statute of limitations had started to run in 2010, when she had made the final payment, and had thus ended in 2013; on the merits, she alleged that she had paid all due amounts by 2010. On 29 November 2018 the Pitești District Court allowed the preliminary objection, as raised by the applicant. The defendant appealed, arguing against the admissibility of the preliminary objection allowed by the first instance court. It submitted that the term for the statute of limitations started to run in 2015, in so far as the credit contract was renewable for the same period as the one initially agreed, unless the debtor expressly denounced such automatic renewal. In reply, the applicant reiterated her defence that she had already paid the due amounts. On 16 September 2019 the   Argeș County Court allowed the appeal and found that the right to claim forced enforcement had not been time barred, as the credit contract had been automatically and successively renewed, twice, each time for sixty instalments, considering that the applicant had not duly notified that she opposed such renewal. It also held that it was not bound to examine the case any further, in view of the fact that the appeal had only challenged the decision to allow the preliminary objection. No reply was given to the applicant’s arguments that she had fully paid the debt in 2010. The challenge to the execution proceedings was dismissed as ill-founded. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant’s right of access to a court provided for in Article 6 §   1 of the Convention been disproportionately restricted by the judgment of 16   September 2019? In particular, has the appellate court’s interpretation of the domestic procedural rules, which prevented the applicant’s action being examined on the merits, secured her a practical and effective right of access to a court (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-78 and 97, 5 April 2018)?   The parties are invited to submit copies of all documents related to the enforcement proceedings.