CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB57ABB22 { width:160.72pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 47986/11 Gheorghe GROZA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   January   2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,   Iulia Motoc,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2011, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Groza, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Petroşani. He was represented before the Court by Ms   M.   Tamaris-Taloi, 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. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicant challenged an administrative decision issued by local boards of Tîrgu Jiu and Gorj established to deal with requests for the return of confiscated property (see Maria Atanasiu and Others v.   Romania , nos.   30767/05 and 33800/06, §§ 44-80, 12 October 2010). 5.     On 16 December 2009 the Tîrgu Jiu District Court gave judgment. Unsatisfied with the outcome, the applicant appealed, but the summons to appear was served on him solely by means of posting it on his gate (hereinafter “by public notice” – citarea prin afişare ). The applicant was not present at the hearing scheduled before the Gorj County Court where the appeal proceedings took place. 6.     On 27 January 2011 the Gorj County Court dismissed the appeal by means of a final decision. 7 .     On 22 February 2011 the applicant lodged an application for review of the final decision of 27 January 2011 ( cerere de revizuire ) on the ground that he had discovered a new document relevant for the merits of the case. On 7 July 2011 the Tîrgu Jiu District Court dismissed his request, noting that the said document had already been brought in the case at the earlier stages of the proceedings. 8 .     On 8 September 2011 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal seeking the quashing of the final decision of 27 January 2011 ( contestaţie în anulare ) on the grounds that the summons for the appeal proceedings had not been correctly served on him. 9.     In a final decision of 13 October 2011 the Gorj County Court dismissed the extraordinary appeal as out of time. It noted that the applicant had become acquainted with the content of the final decision of 27   January   2011 at the latest on 24 February 2011 when he had lodged an application for review (see paragraph 7 above). However, he had not lodged the extraordinary appeal until 8 September 2011 (see paragraph 8 above), namely outside the legal time-limit of fifteen days after the date when he had become acquainted with the content of the final decision. B.     Relevant domestic law 10.     The relevant domestic law in force at the time on the service of judicial documents by public notice is summed up in S.C. Raisa M. Shipping S.R.L. v. Romania (no.   37576/05, § 18, 8   January 2013). COMPLAINT 11.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been prevented from participating in the appeal proceedings because the summons for the hearing on appeal had not been properly served on him and that he had not been aware of the date of that hearing. THE LAW 12.     The applicant complained that he could not participate in the domestic appeal proceedings because he had not received the court notice. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 13.     The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. 14.     The applicant contested the Government’s assertion. 15.     The Court observes that in the case of S.C. Raisa M. Shipping S.R.L. v.   Romania (no. 37576/05, § 25, 8 January 2013) it found that the extraordinary appeal mechanism constituted an effective remedy for a situation similar to that of the present case (see also Hilote v.   Romania (dec.), no. 15838/06, § 11, 13 September 2016). The applicant, who did not use this remedy within the time-limits provided for by domestic law, has not put forward any argument that would allow the Court to reach a different conclusion. 16.     Accordingly, the complaint must be rejected under Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017.   Andrea Tamietti   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Deputy Registrar   President