THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28283/02
by Renate-Felicitas COSTESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
18 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Renate-Felicitas Costescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R. H. Radu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 October 1995 C.C. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for trespassing on domestic premises and destruction. By a judgment of 29 January 1998 the Pucioasa Court of First Instance ordered the discontinuation of the proceedings because the criminal complaint had been introduced by a person without capacity to take legal proceedings.
On 16 March 1998 the Dâmboviţa Tribunal rejected C.C.’s appeal as out of time. C.C.’s subsequent appeal was upheld on 11 June 1998 by the Ploiesti Court of Appeal, which quashed the previous judgment, sending the file back to the Dâmboviţa Tribunal for retrial.
On 5 January 1999 the Dâmboviţa Tribunal upheld C.C.’s appeal and quashed the judgment of 29 January 1998, sending the file back to the Pucioasa Court of First Instance for retrial. The court considered that the first instance court had not summoned the injured party, C.S., and had erroneously considered that her son, C.C., was the injured party, when actually he was only his mother’s representative.
After retrial, the Pucioasa Court of First Instance decided on 8 November 1999 to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant because in the file there was neither a criminal complaint nor a statement from the injured party, C.S.
On 15 June 2000 C.C.’s appeal was rejected as inadmissible by the Dâmboviţa Tribunal, as the criminal complaint needed to be introduced by the injured party only.
On 22 September 2000 the Ploiesti Court of Appeal rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s appeal, but upheld C.C.’s appeal, considering that a major child could introduce a complaint for his parent. The court quashed both judgments and sent the file back to the first instance court for retrial.
On 11 May 2001 the Pucioasa Court of First Instance decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant, considering that the complaint had been introduced outside the time-limit. On 10 August 2001 the Dâmboviţa Tribunal rejected C.C.’s appeal as groundless, considering that the complaint was not valid, as it had not been made by the injured person.
On 30 October 2001 the Ploiesti Court of Appeal allowed C.C.’s subsequent appeal and quashed the two preceding judgments, considering that the criminal claims against the applicant were extinguished by prescription, and sent the case for retrial as far as the civil claims were concerned.
On 27 March 2002 the Pucioasa Court of First Instance rejected the civil complaints, as the applicant’s culpability had not been proved. The solution was upheld on 16 September 2002 by the Dâmboviţa Tribunal.
On 18 November 2002 the Ploiesti Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed C.C.’s appeal, quashed the two previous judgments and granted pecuniary damages.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an unfair trial and about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 6 September 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Răzvan Horaţiu Radu, Agent of the Government of Romania before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Romania offers to pay a global sum of 1 800 euros (one thousand eight hundred euros) to Mrs Renate-Felicitas Costescu with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the
above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 17 July 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Renate-Felcitas Costescu, note that the Government of Romania are prepared to pay me the sum of 1 800 euros (one thousand eight hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy