CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 26451/21 George VULCĂNESCU against Romania lodged on 11 May 2021 communicated on 4 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the annulment of the applicant’s tort claim and of his request for re-examination of that annulment. On 16 September 2020 the applicant lodged a tort claim (“the claim”) with the Bucharest County Court (“the County Court”) against one of his neighbours, alleging that the latter had made defamatory statements concerning his activity as President of the Homeowners’ Association (“Asociația de Proprietari”). On 16 October 2020 the County Court, of its own motion and by an interim decision, annulled the applicant’s claim under Article 200 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that he had failed to submit certain missing information, which he had been asked to provide on 21 September 2020. The decision stated that it could be re-examined within 15 days of service. On 25 October 2020 the applicant requested the re-examination of that decision under Article 200 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that the time-limit for providing the missing information had expired on 19   October 2020, whereas his claim had been annulled on 16 October 2020. On 7 December 2020 the County Court, of its own motion, raised an objection that the applicant had failed to pay the relevant court fee for the re ‑ examination (“excepția netimbrării”) and invited the applicant’s lawyer to submit observations on that objection. The applicant’s lawyer submitted that the court fee had been paid by online bank transfer and that she had filed the proof of payment (“ordin de plată”) issued by the bank. She requested an adjournment in order to pay the court fee a second time and to submit the original proof of payment, and argued that the objection raised by the County Court amounted to a restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court. By an interim decision of the same date, the County Court dismissed the request for an adjournment and annulled the request for re-examination on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the relevant court fee for the re ‑ examination. It noted that the proof of payment submitted by the applicant had not been endorsed by the payee’s bank and therefore did not meet the requirements of Article 150 § 2 of the Civil Code. According to Article   1504 §   1 of the Civil Code, where payment is made by online bank transfer, a payment order signed by the debtor and endorsed by the paying bank is presumed to constitute proof of payment, until proven otherwise. As the payment order had not been endorsed by the issuing bank, the County Court held that the statutory legal presumption provided for in that Article could not apply, and that the payment order did not constitute valid payment of the court fee (“ordinul de plată evidențiat nereflectând o plată valabilă a taxei judiciare de timbru”). It added that a handwritten signature (“semnătura olografă”) by a representative of the payee’s bank would have been sufficed to satisfy the endorsement requirement. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his right of access to a court and the principle of equality of arms had been violated on account of the domestic court’s excessive formalism in annuling both his claim and his subsequent request for re ‑ examination, which precluded him from defending his reputation. He submitted, in particular, that the impugned proceedings had taken place at the height of the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic and that it was of little practical use to permit payment of court fees by bank transfer if judges nevertheless required the payment order to be endorsed by the payee’s bank. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the County Court’s annulment of his tort claim on 16 October 2020 and of his request for re ‑ examination on 7 December 2020 (see, notably, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, §§   84 ‑ 89, 29   November 2016)?   2.     In the affirmative:   (a)     did the limitation pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Miragall Escolano and Others v.   Spain , nos.   38366/97 and 9 others, § 33, 25 January 2000)?   (b)     did the limitation imposed by the County Court restrict the applicant’s right of access to a court in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired?   The parties are invited to comment on all the reasons relied on by the County Court for annulling the claim and the request for re-examination and, in particular, on the relevant legal provisions concerning litigants’ duty to submit the original proof of payment of court fees, as well as on the domestic courts’ practice in this respect.