THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5655/04
Ilie STANA against Romania
and 16 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates tabulated below,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies, if any, to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Romanian nationals whose details are tabulated below. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
All applications concern the length of civil or criminal proceedings in which the applicants were involved, ranging from over six to almost thirteen years.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicants also raised various other complaints in respect of the same sets of proceedings.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the civil or the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of /his civil rights and obligations or of/ ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
1. The Government’s unilateral declarations
By letters sent on the dates tabulated below the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
By these declarations the Romanian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article 6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below. The relevant part of the declarations reads as follows:
“The Government declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their acknowledgement of the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings / of the existence of a violation [of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention] regarding the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings.
The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant[s] as just satisfaction the sum of [sums tabulated below], amount which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law.
This sum is to cover all damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable [in Romanian lei] to the personal account indicated by the applicant[s] within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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. Therefore, the Government respectfully invite the Court rule that the examination of the present application is no longer justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
2. The applicants’ positions
In reply, the applicants expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were unacceptably low and therefore refused the amounts proposed by the Government. The applicants in applications nos. 16966/05, 1821/06, 27272/06 and 30086/09 did not send any comments on the matter.
3. The Court’s assessment
The Court recalls 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”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations 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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (Abramiuc v. Romania, no. 37411/02, §§103-109, 24 February 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).
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 complaints on length of proceedings (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list.
B. Other complaints
Referring to other articles of the Convention and its protocols, the applicants complained of further aspects related to the above proceedings.
Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
No.
Application
Lodged on
Applicant’s name, year of birth and place of residence
Representative
Length of proceedings and levels of jurisdiction
Date of the unilateral declaration
Compensation offered (Euros)
1.
5655/04
STANA v. Romania
05/12/2003
Ilie STANA
18/07/1951
Timisoara
8 years, 11 months
3 levels
24/11/2011
1,700
2.
22233/04
STAN and AVRAMIA v. Romania
23/02/2004
Vasile Gheorghe STAN
05/07/1931
Oniceni
Lucretia AVRAMIA
27/07/1934
Oniceni
9 years, 5 months
2 levels
07/11/2011
3,200 jointly
3.
25483/04
NICULESCU v. Romania
07/05/2004
Mihai NICULESCU
12/04/1940
Bucharest
9 years, 5 months
3 levels
05/01/2001
2,000
4.
16966/05
IORDACHE v. Romania
28/04/2005
Daniel IORDACHE
13/01/1978
Bucharest
Iuliu Eduard Predescu
7 years, 4 months
3 levels
30/01/2012
1,200
5.
31681/05
COTEA v. Romania
15/08/2005
Ion COTEA
03/10/1928
Bucharest
10 years, 4 months
3 levels
04/05/2011
1,800
6.
42443/05
BADEA v. Romania
14/11/2005
Vasile BADEA
25/09/1938
Bucharest
Ionela Plăiasu
8 years, 11 months
3 levels
04/04/2011
2,350
7.
1821/06
PITU v. Romania
28/12/2005
Ioan PITU
22/12/1940
Sibiu
Paraschiva PITU
14/10/1948
Sibiu
6 years, 9 months
3 levels
04/01/2012
1,200 jointly
8.
13756/06
SULINCĂ v. Romania
27/03/2006
Miron SULINCA
07/12/1948
Rosia
Tiberiu Laza
7 years, 10 months
3 levels
04/04/2011
2,250
9.
19367/06
SZANTHO v. Romania
20/04/2006
Barna Ladislau SZANTHO
29/06/1939
Arcus, Covasna
Elisabeta SZANTHO
13/03/1946
Arcus, Covasna
Flore Pop
9 years, 4 months
3 levels
07/11/2011
2,900 jointly
10.
27272/06
DRAGUSIN v. Romania
06/04/2006
Ana DRAGUSIN
21/08/1930
Bucharest – deceased, application continued by her son, Bogdan ENCIU
7 years, 8 months
3 levels
24/10/2011
1,600
11.
35134/06
RINDUROIU v. Romania
14/08/2006
Niculina RINDUROIU
14/10/1951
Ploiesti
11 years, 5 months
3 levels
24/10/2011
4,000
12.
1782/07
PĂIUŞ v. Romania
18/12/2006
Simion PAIUS
9/04/1929
Oradea
7 years, 9 months
2 levels
22/07/2011
2,300
13.
12270/07
TRIF and GUŢĂ v. Romania
27/02/2007
A. Ioan and Leontina TRIF
20/11/1961 and 27/06/1963
Bistrita
B. Alexandru and Gheorghita
GUTA
18/02/1949 and 3/04/1953
Pitesti
A. Vlad Cigan
B. Florina Pocola
A. 6 years, 9 months
2 levels
B. 10 years, 6months
2 levels
22/04/2011
A. 1,800 jointly
B. 3,500 jointly
14.
27764/07
ARON v. Romania
18/06/2007
Cristian ARON
3/01/1961
Constanta
11 years, 3 months
3 levels
26/10/2011
4,000
15.
37924/07
PRODANOF and others (III) v. Romania
15/08/2007
A. Christi Marina PRODANOF
1945
Bucharest
B. Cleliana PRODANOF TORRES
1948
Sao Paulo
Nicolae PRODANOF
11/06/1942
Sao Paulo
Boris George PRODANOF
1947
Sao Paulo
A. Bogdan Horatiu Suciu
B. Elena-Tamara Dan
A. 9 years, 5 months
3 levels
B. 12 years, 7 months
3 levels
07/11/2011
A. 3,300
B. 4,000 jointly
16.
38040/08
NICULESCU v. Romania
16/07/2008
Anton NICULESCU
13/01/1968
Bucharest
Giovanina NICULESCU
11/08/1931
Pickering Ontario
Diana Elena Dragomir
9 years, 3 months
3 levels
02/11/2011
2,400 jointly
17.
30086/09
DAVID v. Romania
25/05/2009
Lucian Ioan DAVID
12/02/1953
Sebes
11 years, 4 months
3 levels
19/09/2011
4,800
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy