CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 juin 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 142 June 2011 Giuran v. Romania - 24360/04 Judgment 21.6.2011 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-3-b No significant disadvantage Domestic proceedings aimed at the recovery of goods worth EUR 350 allegedly stolen from the applicant’s apartment: preliminary objection dismissed   Facts – In 2002, in a final judgment in ordinary criminal proceedings, the domestic courts found a third party guilty of the theft of a number of items belonging to the applicant and ordered her to pay the applicant compensation for their estimated value (about EUR 350). In 2003, following an extraordinary appeal, the High Court of Cassation and Justice quashed the conviction, acquitted the third party and relieved her of the obligation to pay the applicant compensation and costs. Law – Article 35 § 3 (b): None of the parties had submitted information concerning the applicant’s financial status. The applicant was, however, retired, and according to the Romanian Department of Pensions and Social Insurance the average pension level in Romania in 2003, when the applicant lost his entitlement to the EUR 350 awarded in 2002, was the equivalent of some EUR   50. The domestic proceedings, which were the subject of the complaint before the Court, had been aimed at the recovery of goods stolen from the applicant’s own apartment. Therefore, in addition to the pecuniary interest in the actual goods and the sentimental value attached to them, it was necessary also to take into account the fact that the proceedings concerned a question of principle for the applicant, namely his right to respect for his possessions and for his home. Under these circumstances, the applicant could not be deemed not to have suffered a significant disadvantage. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). On the merits, the Court found that the quashing of the final judgment of 2002 had not amounted to a breach of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention or of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes