BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF CIUTĂ v.
ROMANIA
(Application
no. 35527/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18
May 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Ciută v. Romania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
Ann
Power, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 27 April 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 35527/04) against Romania
lodged with the Court under Article
34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by
a
Romanian national, Mr Ştefan
Ciută
(“the applicant”), on 21 September 2004.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
- On
30 April 2008 the
President of the Third Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule
on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Braşov.
A. The accident and subsequent complaints
- On
25 March 1992 the applicant crushed three fingers of his left hand in
an accident at work. He was taken to hospital, where he underwent a
surgical intervention resulting in the amputation of two fingers.
- On
26 March 1992 an investigating commission was constituted within the
private company where the applicant was working. After investigating
the accident, the commission considered that the applicant was at
fault because he had not observed the relevant safety rules.
- The
applicant complained before the Braşov
County Inspectorate for Labour Safety against the way in which the
investigation had been carried out. On 15 April 1993 the Inspectorate
concluded that the investigation had been in line with labour
legislation.
- Beginning
on 17 April 1992 the applicant lodged several criminal complaints
with the Prosecutor’s Office against the Inspectorate’s
conclusions, against the doctors and against his employer in respect
of the causes of the accident. According to the documents in the
file, until 1997, several public prosecutors refused or confirmed the
refusal to initiate a criminal action, considering that the applicant
was responsible for the accident and that he had accepted the
surgical intervention. In a letter of 10 November 1997 addressed
to the General Prosecutor, the applicant mentioned, inter alia,
that he had given up struggling with the prosecutors and that he had
brought a civil action.
B. Claim for damage
- On
6 August 1997 the applicant brought civil proceedings against his
employer, the County Public Health Agency, the County Department for
Labour and Social Protection and the Ministry of Finance. He sought
an order requiring the Public Health Agency to send him, at its
expense, to a medical institution abroad with a view to the
replacement of his two fingers. He further claimed compensation for
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicant alleged that the
amputation of his two fingers had been due to the doctor’s
incompetence and that he had not consented to the surgical
intervention.
- Of
the twenty-five hearings held between 18 September 1997 and 14 May
1999, four were adjourned at the applicant’s request because
his lawyer was ill or in order to study the file previously drawn up
by the public prosecutor. At ten other hearings, he asked if he could
produce evidence in the proceedings. The court upheld the applicant’s
requests to hear witnesses and to produce documents as well as
medico-legal and graphological expert reports, but also mentioned on
two occasions that the defendants were not properly summoned. The
defendants’ statements were also made available.
Ten
other hearings were adjourned because the court had failed to
properly summon the other parties in the proceedings.
- On
21 May 1999 the Braşov County Court
dismissed the action, considering that the applicant had been
exclusively at fault and, on the basis of the medico-legal expert
report, that surgical intervention had been necessary and that the
applicant had consented to it. The court also considered that a
request by the applicant to hear some extra witnesses was pertinent
but not conclusive because it was difficult to believe that witnesses
might invalidate documents produced by specialised bodies.
- On
14 January 2000 the Braşov Court of
Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, taking into
consideration that, besides it being his fault, he had not lost his
capacity to work and continued to work at the same company.
- The
applicant lodged a further appeal, complaining of the court’s
refusal to admit the evidence he wished to adduce, including new
medico-legal and graphological expert reports. Of the six hearings
held, two were adjourned because the court had failed to properly
summon the defendants and two other for deliberations. The applicant
expressly opposed the adjournment of the proceedings on one occasion.
- On
26 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld his appeal,
quashed the previous judgments and sent the case to the Braşov
Court of First Instance instructing it to take further evidence and
provide a fresh examination. The court held that the lower courts had
disregarded the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure by
rejecting the applicant’s request to produce further evidence.
Thus, it considered relevant the applicant’s request to hear
witnesses.
- During
the retrial, of the twenty-two hearings held between 27 February
2002 and 8 December 2003 only three were adjourned at the applicant’s
request. At three other hearings, the court heard four witnesses
proposed by the applicant, requested him to provide further
information and allowed his requests for medico-legal and
graphological expert reports. Then the court ordered a new
adjournment so that the expert reports could be prepared. On 10 April
2002 the applicant made further submissions and on 19 June 2002 the
hospital was joined in the proceedings. Two other hearings were
adjourned because the court had failed to properly summon the other
parties in the proceedings.
At
eight other hearings, the applicant lodged requests to challenge
either individual judges, the whole section or all the courts in
Braşov. Four of these requests were
declared null and void for non-payment of the stamp duty, one was
rejected for lack of reasoning and three as unfounded. In particular,
on 5 September 2003, the court held that his request was made in bad
faith and therefore imposed a fine on him on the grounds that he had
challenged the judges several times and had used insulting words and
inappropriate remarks against them.
- However,
on 19 September 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld a request by
the applicant to transfer the proceedings to the Ploieşti Court
of First Instance for legitimate doubt as to judges’ objective
impartiality. On 1 October 2003 the Braşov
Court of First Instance sent the case file to that court.
- On
15 December 2003 the Ploieşti Court of First Instance dismissed
the action. It found, on the basis of expert reports, that the
applicant had been exclusively at fault for the accident, that the
graphological expert report confirmed the applicant’s consent
by signature to the surgical intervention and to its risks and that,
in spite of his permanent infirmity, his capacity to work had not
been diminished. It also held that the examination of the accident
carried out by the investigating commission had been in accordance
with the law.
- On
27 April 2004 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal considered an appeal
by the applicant to be unfounded. It also held that, according to the
Supreme Court’s directions (see paragraph 14 above), it was not
necessary to reassess the graphological or medico-legal expert
reports.
- The
applicant lodged a further appeal with the High Court of Cassation
and Justice complaining that the lower court had dismissed his
request to reassess the expert reports. On 28 July 2004 the High
Court considered that, in line with new legal provisions regarding
changes of venue, it was within the competence of the Court of Appeal
to hear that appeal and it remitted it back to that court.
- On
15 November 2005 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal dismissed the
appeal by a final decision. It upheld the findings of the lower
courts which had considered it unnecessary to reassess the expert
reports and which had complied with the directions of the Supreme
Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument contending that the case had been
particularly complex because of the need to produce several expert
reports and to hear witnesses. Moreover, the applicant had requested
several adjournments and had made numerous requests to challenge the
judges or to have the proceedings transferred to another court. They
also submitted that the applicant had delayed the proceedings by
making full use of the procedures available to him under domestic law
to complain against unfavourable court decisions.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 6 August 1997 and
ended on 15 November 2005. It thus lasted more than eight years and
three months at three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court concludes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Nor is
it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having examined all the material submitted to it, the
Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or
argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in
the present case. While the applicant bore responsibility for delays
of several months, his conduct alone cannot explain the overall
length of the proceedings.
- The
Court further notes that several hearings were held during the
proceedings (see paragraphs 10 and 15 above) and it cannot consider,
to this extent, that the national courts were inactive. However, the
fact that the courts held numerous hearings does not necessarily mean
that the case was progressing. Moreover, the dispute in the present
case was related to compensation for damage to his health. The Court
is of the opinion that the nature of the dispute called for
particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see, mutatis
mutandis, Marchenko v. Russia, no. 29510/04, § 40, 5
October 2006; Păunoiu v. Romania, no. 32700/04, §
27,
16 September 2008; and Drăgănescu v. Romania,
no. 29301/03, § 22,
30 September 2008).
- The
Court also reiterates that an applicant cannot be criticised for
taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in
the defence of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Yağcı
and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A no.
319 A). In the present case, the Court notes that the
applicant’s constant efforts to introduce evidence (see
paragraphs 11 and 13 above) were successfully upheld by the Supreme
Court of Justice (see paragraph 14 above). Moreover, the applicant
tried several times to challenge judges’ impartiality and
failed for several reasons, but eventually he succeeded in his
attempts (see paragraphs 15 and 16 above).
- The
Court further notes the constant failure by the courts to summon
different parties in the proceedings (see paragraphs 10, 13 and 15
above). In addition, certain delay was also caused by the
re-examination of the case as a result of errors committed by lower
courts (see paragraph 14 above).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in
the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of being tortured by the
doctors and that his fingers had been amputated without his consent.
He also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the solutions given
by the domestic courts, which had failed to assess the facts
correctly, had refused to hear the witnesses he wanted to call, had
misinterpreted the domestic law and had not been impartial. The
applicant further complained about the criminal investigations
carried out by the prosecutors.
- Having
carefully considered the applicant’s submissions in the light
of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that, in so
far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they do
not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms
set out in the Convention.
- It
follows that this part of the application must be declared
inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35
§§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage incurred as a consequence of a decrease in his capacity to
work following the amputation of his two fingers. He further claimed
a pension of EUR 2,000 per month, for the rest of his life, and EUR
1,000 per month for a carer. The applicant also claimed EUR 3,000,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim for pecuniary damage on the ground
that no causal link between the pecuniary damage sought and the
alleged length-of-proceedings violation could be found. Further, they
considered that a finding of a violation would constitute in itself
sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the
applicant might have suffered. In any event, they considered that the
amounts claimed were too high.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
non-pecuniary damage in respect of the violation found. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards EUR 2,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 100,000 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and before this Court,
representing lawyer’s and expert report fees, transport and
postal fees. He submitted a contract of judicial assistance and
invoices for payment of lawyer’s and expert report fees, as
well as for transport and postal expenses.
- The
Government contested these claims on the grounds that the contract of
judicial assistance entered into with a lawyer had not been signed by
the latter and had not mentioned the requested hourly fees and that
it was impossible to match travel expense claims with journeys made
in respect of this case.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. The Court considers that the applicant has
not shown that the legal costs and expenses claimed by him were
incurred in order to prompt domestic courts to comply with the
requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see Zimmermann and Steiner v.
Switzerland, 13 July 1983, § 37,
Series A
no. 66, and Craiu v. Romania, no. 26662/02, § 38, 7
October 2008). However, regard being had to the information in its
possession and to the above criteria, and making an assessment on an
equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention,
the Court awards the applicant EUR 100 in respect of costs and
expenses.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within the same three
months, the amount of EUR 100 (one hundred euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable to him, in respect of costs and expenses;
(c) that
the aforementioned amounts shall be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement;
(d) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 May 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President
