CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2024

.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 } Published on 17 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40827/21 Ștefan Zoltan BODENLOSZ against Romania lodged on 30 July 2021 communicated on 28 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s right to access to a court, in view of the fact that he, petitioner in civil proceedings, was fined by the domestic court for having abusively exercised his right to lodge a request with the court. In particular, on 2 October 2020 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, requested before the courts that his pension be increased on the basis of Article   86 §   2   b) of the Law no. 127/2019 concerning public pensions, which stated that as of 1   September 2020, the pension unit (“ punctul de pensie ”) was of RON 1,775. However, his pension as of September 2020 had been calculated on the basis of a unit of RON 1,442. By a decision of 27 November 2020, the first instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim as manifestly ill-founded. The court found that the applicant had knowingly relied on legal provisions which had been modified before ever entering into force. In particular, Article 86 § 2 b) of the Law   no.   127/2019 had been amended on 14 August 2020, setting the value of a pension unit at RON 1,442. The pension authority calculated the applicant’s pension on that basis, namely, on the law in force at the relevant time. In view of the fact that the applicant had been informed, including by his chosen lawyer, that the law he had relied on was not and had never been in force, and still he insisted in bad faith to pursue his action, the court considered it appropriate to apply a judicial fine of RON 1,000 (approximately EUR   200), the maximum amount established by the Civil Procedure Code for a judicial sanction. The applicant challenged the application of the fine, arguing that he had been denied the very right to access to court. He submitted that he exercised his procedural rights in good faith, considering that the successive legislative amendments of the relevant legal provisions entitled him to have a legitimate expectation to see his pension raised. He argued that the amendment of the relevant law in August 2020 had been repealed in September 2020, hence showing that the Parliament disapproved the measures taken by the Government; subsequently, that repeal was subject to a constitutional control before the Constitutional Court, leaving a question as to what legal provisions were applicable in his case. By a final judgment of 17 February 2021, the Maramureș County Court upheld the lower court’s decision to fine the applicant. The court held that even though the applicant had benefitted from legal assistance and was given explanations as to the relevant amendments to the law he had relied on, he continued, in bad faith, to rely on a previous version of the law, which had been amended before ever entering into force. To knowingly rely on a provision which was not applicable and to ask the court to ignore the applicable law meant to abusively exercise one’s procedural rights. Furthermore, the applicant’s access to court had not been breached, in so far as the first instance court had examined his request on the merits and dismissed it as ill-founded. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case which were terminated on 17 February 2021 (see, mutatis mutandis , Toyaksi and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos.   43569/08 and 3 others, 20 October 2010)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Sace Elektrik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v.   Turkey , no. 20577/05, § 27, 22 October 2013)? In particular, was the sanction imposed on the applicant capable to have a “chilling effect” on the exercise of his right to bring his civil claims before a tribunal, within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention?