FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37792/12
András Ignác BALASSY against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 April 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr András Ignác Balassy, is a Hungarian national, who was born on 10 February 1953 and lives in Sfȃntu Gheorghe, Romania.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) on 23 October 2014.
THE LAW
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court on 13 November 2015 that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints.
The Government acknowledged the excessive length of criminal proceedings. They offered to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 3,240 (three thousand two hundred and forty euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
By a letter of 13 January 2016, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that he did not intend to settle the case this way.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI)).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings (see, for example, Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2016.
Hasan BakırcıVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy