Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8968/14
BRD - GROUPE SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE S.A.
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 December 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Faris Vehabović, President,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 8968/14) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 17 January 2014 by a company incorporated in Romania, BRD - Groupe Société Générale S.A., (“the applicant”) which was represented by Mr D. Bogdan, a lawyer practising in Bucharest;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged unfairness of judicial proceedings as a result of which a large amount of money allegedly obtained from criminal activity was transferred from an account of a third company (S.C. L. S.A) held by the applicant bank, to the Romanian Ministry of Finance. The amount of money in question was held by the applicant bank as a guarantee for a loan issued by it to the above third company.
2. In its application lodged on 17 January 2014 the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to examine the arguments adduced by it, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an alleged breach of its property rights.
3. On 6 February 2015, after the communication of the case in October 2014, the applicant company informed the Court that on 30 January 2014 it had assigned the receivable held against the S.C. L. S.A. to another third person.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. On 8 September 2022 the Court invited the applicant to explain the reason for which it did not inform it in a timely manner about the assignment of the debt which was the subject matter in the present case. By a letter dated 20 September 2022 the applicant responded that while setting an obligation for the parties to keep the Court informed of all relevant circumstances, Article 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court did not impose a deadline to do so. Since the applicant informed the Court about the assignment of the debt on 6 February 2015, it considered that it had discharged its duty under the above provision of the Rules of Court. It also argued that it had not gained any procedural advantage from the fact that it had not informed the Court earlier about the impugned development.
5. The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, applicants are required to keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. It also notes that the applicant’s attention was expressly drawn to this obligation in the Court’s letter by which the receipt and registration of its application was confirmed. The Court further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation was given for the failure to disclose that information (Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007).
6. Turning to the facts of the present case, it appears that the applicant company assigned the debt to a third party barely two weeks after lodging the current application. However, it informed the Court about the assignment of the debt more than thirteen months after the assignment had taken place, and after the case had been communicated to the respondent Government. The Court further notes that the information in question was of great importance in the determination of the admissibility of the application, more precisely of the question whether the applicant company continued to be a victim of the breaches alleged by it.
7. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant, represented by a legal counsel, has not furnished any plausible explanation for its failure to inform the Court in a timely manner about the above important developments. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicant’s conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.
8. In view of the above, the application must accordingly be rejected as abusive, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 January 2023.
Crina Kaufman Faris Vehabović
Acting Deputy Registrar President