CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 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 } Published on 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27673/19 Andrei-Gabriel GOIA against Romania lodged on 9 May 2019 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the alleged failure of the domestic courts to render a decision in respect of civil claims lodged within a set of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant. At the first-instance level, the applicant was convicted for accessory to attempted murder and to bodily injury and sentenced to 5 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. He was ordered to pay damages to the hospital, jointly with other co-defendants in relation to the attempted murder offence, and solely, in relation to the bodily injury offence. At the appeal stage, the victim of the bodily injury offence withdrew his prior complaint against the applicant. The latter argued that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued, and he should not be ordered to pay any damages to the hospital, because the prior complaint had been withdrawn. By a final decision of 21 February 2019 the Cluj Court of Appeal acknowledged the discontinuance of the charges of bodily injury since the prior complaint of the victim was a prerequisite for the pursuing of criminal proceedings for this offence, and upheld the conviction for accessory to attempted murder. No consideration was made in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in so far as the civil claims were concerned with the exception of the operative part of the judgment, which stated that the remaining provisions of the decision adopted by the first-instance court were upheld. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Cluj Court of Appeal had failed to render a decision in respect of his civil obligations on account of the bodily injury offence, remaining under the obligation to pay damages to the hospital, as per the first-instance court’s decision. He claimed that, following the withdrawal of the prior complaint, the domestic court should have either dismissed the civil claims in this respect or, according to the domestic law, leave them open for decision by a civil court. Lastly, he asserted that he had not had any available remedy in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in so far as he complained about the Cluj Court of Appeal’s omission to examine the civil claims he had made in the criminal proceedings, were there any effective remedy available to the applicant? Was a request for review under Article   453   (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 509 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code an effective remedy?   2.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, and if so, did he have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the domestic courts’ duty to conduct a proper examination of the parties’ submissions (see, for example, Hiro Balani v.   Spain , no.   18064/91, 9   December 1994, §§ 27-28, Series A no. 303-B, Perez v.   France [GC], no.   47287/99, §§ 80-82, ECHR 2004 I, and Mont Blanc Trading Ltd and Antares Titanium Trading Ltd v. Ukraine , no.   11161/08, §   84, 14   January 2021), did the Cluj Court of Appeal render a decision in respect of the applicant’s civil obligations related to the bodily injury offence? In the affirmative, was the decision properly reasoned?