Last updated: 6 December 2018
In light of recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), complaints submitted by Romanian natural and legal persons (after 22 March 2015) concerning the violation of the right to a fair trial through the excessive length of judicial proceedings will be rejected as inadmissible if the plaintiff fails to prove that he/she has brought tort proceedings against the Romanian State (prior to addressing the ECHR) in order to claim damages for the excessive length of a trial.
CEDO CASE LAW
Thus, in the case of Vald and others vs. Romania, by its Decision dated 26.11.2013, the European Court of Human Rights found a general deficiency of the Romanian legislative system, which failed to stipulate efficient remedies for the unreasonable length of a civil or criminal trial.
Thus, the ECHR urged the Romanian State to put in place effective measures with regard to the excessive length of trials. Such measures were introduced with the entry into force of the new Codes of Civil Procedure (2013) and Criminal Procedure (2014).
NATIONAL CASE LAW
The Romanian courts had already begun (even prior to the introduction of the complaint for the excessive length of the trial in the new Codes) accepting claims for damages lodged in accordance with the general rules stipulated by the previous legislation on tort.
The ruling rendered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 30 January 2014 (drafted on 22 September 2014), whereby the Court accepted a tort proceeding lodged in 2010 against the Romanian State for the violation of the right to a reasonable length of the trial, is relevant to this effect.
Therefore, given the constant practice of national courts, the ECHR found that tort proceedings are an effective remedy for the excessive length of trials before criminal or civil courts.
ECHR REFERENCE-CASE
Therefore, taking into account the practice of national courts, the European Court of Human Rights, in Case no. 75717/14 Brudan vs. Romania, by the Decision delivered on 10 April 2018, based on the conclusions lodged in the case of Vlad and others vs. Romania, raised the question whether there is an effective remedy in Romania available to those who consider that their right to a reasonable length of a trial was breached.
Thus, the European Court of Human Rights found that, starting with 22 March 2015 (date after which the decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice was considered as notorious), the Romanian State has recognized such a remedy.
The ECHR therefore considered that any person under the jurisdiction of the Romanian State who claims that his/her right to a reasonable length of a trial was breached may bring tort proceedings against the State before the national courts and can no longer directly address the ECHR before exhausting the internal remedies.
Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has found that the amount of compensation granted by national courts is often even higher than compensation granted by the ECHR in similar cases and never less than 80-90% of such compensation.