Last Updated on November 14, 2023 by LawEuro
The case concerns the alleged breach of the principle of “legal certainty” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention owing to the domestic courts’ examination of a late appeal of the opposing party without giving any reasons and without extending the time-limit for the appeal.
The general principles concerning the observance of the principle of legal certainty enshrined in Article 6 have been summarized, for instance, in Roşca v. Moldova, Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova and Banca Internaţională de Investiţii şi Dezvoltare MB S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova.
It is noted that the Government acknowledged that the parties to the domestic proceedings had obtained the full text of the Rîşcani District Court’s judgment of 7 December 2005 in the applicant’s favour on the date when it was pronounced. While they argued that the time-limit for lodging an appeal was 20 days, in fact it was 15 days as per Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the version in force in December 2005. Accordingly, the judgment of 7 December 2005 became final on 22 December 2005. The party opposing the applicant in the domestic proceedings (G.) lodged his appeal on 26 December 2005, more than 15 days after obtaining the full text of the judgment. Moreover, while accepting to examine G.’s appeal, the higher courts have never formally extended the time-limit for lodging that appeal, nor given any reasons for such an extension.
In view of its extensive case-law on the matter and in the absence of any reasons to depart from it, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.
Full text of the document.
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ROBULEŢ v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 17935/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Robuleţ v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Jovan Ilievski, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 17935/08) 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 26 February 2008 by a Moldovan national, Ms Marina Robuleţ, born in 1968 and living in Ungheni (“the applicant”), who was represented by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Sacramento;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged breach of the principle of “legal certainty” protected by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention owing to the domestic courts’ examination of a late appeal of the opposing party without giving any reasons and without extending the time-limit for the appeal.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION (legal certainty)
2. The Court notes that the complaint concerning the domestic courts’ examination of a late appeal 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.
3. The general principles concerning the observance of the principle of legal certainty enshrined in Article 6 have been summarized, for instance, in Roşca v. Moldova (no. 6267/02, §§ 24-25, 22 March 2005), Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 14385/04, §§ 97-98, 19 December 2006) and Banca Internaţională de Investiţii şi Dezvoltare MB S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 28648/05, §§ 35-44, 16 October 2012, with further references).
4. It is noted that the Government acknowledged that the parties to the domestic proceedings had obtained the full text of the Rîşcani District Court’s judgment of 7 December 2005 in the applicant’s favour on the date when it was pronounced. While they argued that the time-limit for lodging an appeal was 20 days, in fact it was 15 days as per Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the version in force in December 2005. Accordingly, the judgment of 7 December 2005 (which expressly indicated a 15-day time-limit for appeal) became final on 22 December 2005. The party opposing the applicant in the domestic proceedings (G.) lodged his appeal on 26 December 2005, more than 15 days after obtaining the full text of the judgment. Moreover, while accepting to examine G.’s appeal, the higher courts have never formally extended the time-limit for lodging that appeal (despite a legal obligation of doing so under Article 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure), nor given any reasons for such an extension.
5. In view of its extensive case-law on the matter (see, for instance, Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, §§ 46-55, 13 June 2006; Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 38-43, 14 November 2006; Ponomaryov v. Ukraine, no. 3236/03, §§ 40-42, 3 April 2008; and Carpov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 6338/11, §§ 20-23, 12 February 2019) and in the absence of any reasons to depart from it, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.
II. OTHER COMPLAINTS
6. In view of its findings in the preceding paragraph, the Court considers that it is not necessary to decide on the admissibility or the merits of the remaining complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention regarding G.’s failure to pay court fees when lodging his appeal, the Court of Appeal’s failure to hold a public hearing, the applicant’s inability to submit her case properly to the Supreme Court of Justice and the length of the proceedings as well as the lack of an effective remedy in that respect.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicant claimed 10,000 US dollars and 1,800 Moldovan lei (MDL) in respect of pecuniary damage, consisting of the price of the truck in dispute in the domestic proceedings and of the court fees paid. She also claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,063 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
8. The Government argued that there was no causal link between the violation alleged and the pecuniary damage claimed. They further considered that non-pecuniary damage had not been proved and that the amount of legal fees claimed was excessive.
9. The Court notes that the applicant failed to submit any evidence confirming the monetary value of the truck in dispute or regarding the amount paid in court fees. It therefore rejects this claim, while taking into account that under Article 449 (h) of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant will be able to ask for the reopening of the domestic proceedings in order to obtain a determination of the domestic courts as to her argument about the belated appeal lodged by G. However, it awards the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
10. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,500 covering costs incurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning legal certainty admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning legal certainty;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 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 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five 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 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Jovan Ilievski
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply