CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 9 February 2021 Published on 1 March 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14166/19 Vlad STOENESCU against Romania lodged on 6 March 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaints that he had to pay (in full) court fees in spite of the fact that before the first hearing in the proceedings concerning partition of goods between him and his former wife, the two had reached a settlement before the notary, for which they had paid corresponding fees and taxes, and their case before the court had thus been dismissed as devoid of purpose. In separate proceedings lodged by the applicant for the reimbursement of the court fees already paid and the cancellation of the remaining payments, the Bucharest County Court, in its final judgment of 2 October 2018, confirmed the applicant’s obligation to pay the fees in full, essentially holding that the situation mentioned by the applicant, namely that the case was terminated before the first hearing because the parties had settled, was not among the ones set out in the law to justify a reimbursement or cancellation of court fees. The applicant submitted several decisions given by the courts across the country in which similar claims relating to the reimbursement of court fees had been granted. The applicant contended that at the relevant time, he had already paid 33,936   RON (approximately 7,400 EUR) out of the full amount of 42,419.2   RON (approximately 9,120 EUR ) and he was still paying monthly instalments to cover all the amount of the court fees. He alleges a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case, terminated by the final judgment of 2   October 2018? In particular, do the proceedings complained of by the applicant and which concerned the cancelation or reimbursement of court fees, constitute a dispute over a civil right which is recognised by the domestic law (see for instance Micallef v. Malta [GC], no.   17056/06, §§   83 ‑ 86, ECHR 2009, and Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, §§   44 ‑ 45, 25 September 2018)?   2.     If so, has the applicant had a fair hearing in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in so far as similar actions before various domestic courts, concerning claims for reimbursement and/or exemption from the further payment of court fees when the main proceedings had already terminated on the basis of the parties’ agreement, had different outcomes? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty, as developed in the Court’s case-law in the interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention (see for instance Tudor Tudor v. Romania , no. 21911/03, 24 March 2009 and Albu and Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, 10 May 2012), complied with by the domestic courts?   3.     Did the imposition of the obligation to pay the court fees in full in the circumstances of this case amount to a breach of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions protected by Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention?