THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23625/13
Maria BOLOȘ and Felician BOLOȘ
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Johannes Silvis, President,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 March 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 5 May 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants, Mrs Maria Boloș and Mr Felician Boloş, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1961 and 1957 respectively and live in Negreşti Oaş.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 17 November 2014 the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against them which lasted nine years and four months was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
4. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 5 May 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
5. The declaration provided as follows:
“Le Gouvernement déclare — au moyen de la présente déclaration unilatérale – qu’il reconnait la durée excessive de la procédure interne qui fait l’objet de la présente requête devant la Cour.
Le Gouvernement déclare être prêt à verser conjointement à Mme Maria Bolos et à M. Felician Bolos, à titre de la satisfaction équitable, la somme de 1 620 EUR, montant qu’il considère raisonnable au vu de la jurisprudence de la Cour.
Cette somme, qui couvrira tout préjudice matériel et moral, ainsi que les frais et dépens, ne sera soumise à aucun impôt. Elle sera versée en lei roumains au taux applicable à la date du paiement, sur le compte bancaire indique par les parties requérantes dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de radiation du rôle adoptée par la Cour. À défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal a celui de la facilite de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmente de trois points de pourcentage, Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l’affaire.”
6. The applicants did not reply to the Government’s letter.
7. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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 application”.
8. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
9. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 with respect to one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013).
10. Having regard to the nature of 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)).
11. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
12. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 22 October 2015.
Marialena TsirliJohannes Silvis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy