Last Updated on December 14, 2021 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF CIMPOEŞ v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 12030/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cimpoeş v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 12030/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 January 2013 by a Moldovan national, Mr Gheorghe Cimpoeş, born in 1978 and living in Comrat (“the applicant”) who was represented by Ms A. Aladova, a lawyer practising in Comrat;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, represented by their Agent, Mr M. Gurin and later by their Agent ad-interim Ms R. Revencu;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns excessive length of administrative proceedings.
2. On 11 April 2005 the applicant was sentenced to ten days of administrative arrest for disobeying police orders and for insulting a police officer. On 28 April 2005 the Comrat Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and ordered a rehearing of the case. The file was lost and the case was not reheard to date.
3. The applicant initiated proceedings against the Ministry of Finance in accordance with Law No. 87, claiming compensation for the excessive length of proceedings. On 1 August 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice finally found that the duration of the proceedings (six years and eight months at the time) was excessive and attributable to the acts of the authorities, and awarded the applicant 5,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 319 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. DISJOINDER OF THE APPLICATION
4. In view of similar complaints on the delay in the enforcement of final judgments and excessive length of proceedings, in 2015 the Court decided to join this application with sixty others (see Ialtexgal Aurica S.A. and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), nos. 16000/10 and 60 other applications, § 10, 1 September 2015) and declared the applications partially inadmissible.
5. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other sixty and to examine it separately.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
7. The general principles concerning the excessive length of proceedings have been summarised in Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, § 44, 15 January 2008).
8. The domestic courts found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings due to the loss of the court file and that the Court sees no reason to disagree with that finding. The Court also notes that the domestic courts awarded the applicant compensation for non‑pecuniary damage. It therefore considers that the principal issue is whether the award made was proportionate to the damage suffered by the applicant. It recalls in this latter respect that the level of compensation must not be unreasonable in comparison with the awards made by the Court in similar cases (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009). Where, as in the present case, the victim status and therefore, the existence of a violation, is linked with the monetary redress afforded at domestic level, the Court’s assessment necessarily involves comparison between the actual award and the amount that the Court would award in similar cases (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 181, ECHR 2006‑V, and Holzinger v. Austria (no. 1), no. 23459/94, § 21, ECHR 2001‑I).
9. The Court notes that the domestic courts awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 319 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage for a duration of proceedings of six years and eight months. This amount is considerably below compared to the amounts awarded by the Court in cases in which it has found a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Cravcenco v. Moldova, cited above, § 70, where the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for excessive length of proceedings of more than nine years).
10. For these reasons, the Court considers that the applicant did not lose his victim status and that the Government have not put forward any argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
11. In addition, it is noted that it is open for the applicant to initiate repeated proceedings under Law No. 87 to seek compensation for the period after 2012, which was not taken into account by the domestic courts in the reference period and that this period amounts to over nine years and, therefore, is sufficiently long to be regarded as a second violation in respect of the same proceedings.
12. Because the use of the compensatory remedy under Law No. 87 did not result in adequate redress and the proceedings in question are still pending before domestic courts without any development, the Court finds that it would be unjust to request the applicant to exhaust the remedy under Law No. 87 a second time. For this reason, the Court will take into consideration the entire length of proceedings and not only the period examined by the Supreme Court of Justice (Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 35098/12, §§ 44-45, 12 February 2019; Titan Total Group S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 61458/08, § 76, 6 July 2021).
13. In the light of the foregoing, the Court also finds that there has been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicant claimed EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,860 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He submitted a contract with his legal representative and a detailed timesheet for her work on the case.
15. The Government submitted that the claims were excessive.
16. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant was already awarded the equivalent of EUR 319 by the domestic courts and the overall duration of proceedings (see paragraph 12 above), the Court awards him EUR 2,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 140, ECHR 2006; Cristea v. the Republic of Moldova, cited above, §§ 58-60).
17. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 800 EUR for costs and expenses incurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
18. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,
1. Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 800 (eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Aleš Pejchal
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply