PETRAŞCU v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall
1. The applicant, Ms Elena Petraşcu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1931 and lives in Bucharest. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. V. Manta, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. On 6 November 2008 the applicant brought proceedings against a third party seeking the cancellation of the sale contract with a maintenance clause for her apartment. During the proceedings before the first and second-instance courts, the applicant was assisted by a legal representative of her own choosing. 5. By an interlocutory judgment (ȋncheiere de şedință) of 2 December 2008 the Bucharest District Court adjourned the proceedings to, inter alia, allow the applicant to specify the value of the object of the dispute, in order for the court to be able to determine its competence ratione materiae and the appropriate form of appeal that could be lodged against the judgment. 6. At a hearing on 6 January 2009 the applicant submitted to the firstinstance court that the tax value of the apartment, namely 64,959 Romanian lei (approximately 17,500 euros (EUR)), was the value of the object of the dispute. 7. By a judgment of 12 May 2009 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant’s action as ill-founded on the basis of the available documents, submissions and testimonial evidence. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was amenable to appeal within fifteen days of notification. 8. On 11 August 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the firstinstance court’s judgment without providing reasons. 9. On 26 October 2009 the applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the first-instance court’s judgment, for which she did provide reasons. 10. At a hearing on 2 February 2010 before the Bucharest County Court the applicant argued that the market value of her apartment was RON 110,000 (approximately 29,000 Euros (EUR)). 11. On 6 April 2010, after hearing submissions from both parties, the Bucharest County Court changed the applicant’s appeal to an appeal on points of law and referred the case to a bench of three judges competent to examine such appeals by virtue of Article 2821 (1) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure. It held that on 6 January 2009 the applicant had expressly informed the first-instance court of the value of the apartment, which had not been contested by the third party. In addition, the relevant civil procedure rules and the principle of lawfulness did not allow the parties to choose the form of appeal they wished to lodge against a judgment. 12. On 1 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court heard submissions from both parties on whether the applicant had provided reasons for her appeal on points of law within the statutory time-limit. 13. On 2 June 2010 the applicant submitted written observations to the Bucharest County Court. She reiterated her argument that the value of her apartment was RON 110,000 and contended that the second-instance court had wrongfully reclassified her appeal. In addition, she contended that she had submitted the reasons for her appeal within the statutory time-limit. 14. By a final judgment of 18 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law invalid. It held that she had not submitted her reasons for it within the statutory time-limit. Moreover, there was no public interest justifying the invalidation of the judgment. Furthermore, the appropriate form of appeal that could be exercised by the parties was prescribed by law and not the judge examining the case. Consequently, the fact that the first-instance court had wrongfully identified the form of appeal that could have been exercised by the applicant did not exempt her from lodging the appropriate form of appeal and from submitting her reasons for it within the statutory time-limit. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment and argued, inter alia, that at the time of initiating the proceedings against the third party the domestic legislation on judicial tax had not classified her action as a pecuniary type of action. It was only on 12 December 2008 that the domestic legislation on judicial tax had been amended and the classification had changed. Also, the second-instance court could have ordered an expert report to determine the value of the apartment, given that the applicant had expressly informed the same court that the value in question was in excess of RON 100,000. 15. On 31 March 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. It held, inter alia, that the judgment in the interest of the law (recurs ȋn interesul legii) delivered by the Court of Cassation on 9 June 2008 had considered that the type of action opened by the applicant against the third party was pecuniary in nature and that the provisions of Article 2821 (1) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure therefore applied. In addition, the Bucharest County Court had lawfully interpreted the applicant’s clear and repeated submissions that the value of the apartment in dispute was RON 64,959. 16. Article 103 (1) and (2) provided that failure to lodge any form of appeal within the statutory time-limit resulted in the deprivation of that right, except when the law provided otherwise or the party proved that it was impeded from doing so by unforeseen circumstances. In the latter case, the right could be exercised within fifteen days of the date the impediment ceased to exist. 17. Article 112 (3) provided that the application to initiate proceedings had to include a description of the object of the dispute as estimated by the claimant. 18. Articles 282, 287 and 292 provided that first-instance court judgments were amenable to appeal within fifteen days of the date of notification. Reasons for the appeal had to be submitted by the parties at the time of the first hearing before the court at the latest. Failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the allowed time-limit did not lead to its invalidation, but removed the ability to raise additional issues of fact and law that had not been raised before the first-instance court. 19. Articles 2821 (1) (amended by Law no. 195/2004, which entered into force on 29 May 2004), 299, 301 and 3021 provided that judgments delivered in respect of disputes where the object of the dispute was valued at less than RON 1 billion (approximately EUR 27,000) were not amenable to appeal. Judgments not amenable to appeal were amenable to appeal on points of law (recurs). An appeal on points of law could be lodged within fifteen days of the judgment being notified to the parties. Reasons for the appeal on points of law had to be submitted within the same fifteen-day period, or it would be declared invalid. 20. Article 329 (3) provided that judgments in the interest of the law had no impact on existing judgments or on the situation of the parties involved in the proceedings. The solution adopted was binding on the domestic courts.