THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 128/04 and other applications
Gheorghe DAVID and Others
against Romania
(see appendix for other applications)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 April 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the applications listed in the appendix lodged on 8 November 2003, 25 May 2004, 5 May 2005, 6 June 2006 and 4 April 2007 respectively,
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’ reply, if any, to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Romanian nationals, except for the applicant in case no. 27079/07, who is a German national. The German Government did not exercise their right to intervene in this case (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan‑Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
All applications concern mainly the length of civil proceedings in which the applicants were either defendants or respondents. The length of the proceedings varies from five years and three months to over nine years, some of them being still pending before the national courts (applications nos. 25485/06 and 27079/07).
COMPLAINTS
1. Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of the length of proceedings and of the unfairness of the proceedings, in so far as the courts wrongfully assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions (all applications).
2. The applicants also raised different other complaints in respect of the same sets of proceedings, namely regarding their alleged property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (all applications), discriminatory treatment of the applicant’s father by the Romanian communist authorities under Article 9, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (application no. 27079/07), and lack of access to an effective remedy for the determination of their property rights under Article 13 (application no. 128/04).
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
1. The Government’s unilateral declarations and the applicants’ positions
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.
1. DAVID v. Romania (no. 128/04)
Application lodged by Gheorghe David.
By letter of 22 April 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings to which the applicant was a party. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 1,200, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicant 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 invites 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. S.C. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 35612/05)
Application lodged by S.C. International Service S.R.L., represented before the Court by Mr Paul Enache.
By letter of 19 July 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings to which the applicant was a party. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 800, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicant 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 invites 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.”
3. MANDRU and TARZIU v. Romania (no. 23311/05)
Application lodged by Mihai Mandru and Anisoara Tarziu, the first applicant being represented before the Court by Ms Diana-Elena Dragomir, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
By letter of 29 September 2009, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 1,500, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicant 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 invites 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.”
4. APREOTESEI v. Romania (no. 25485/06)
Application lodged by Ana and Valeriu Apreotesei, represented before the Court by Mr Ioan Popa, a lawyer practising in Bacau.
By letter of 8 September 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings to which the applicant was a party. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 1,700, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicant 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 invites 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.”
5. ROHRLICH-BERGER v. Romania (no. 27079/07)
Application lodged by Nicoleta Patricia Rohrlich-Berger.
By letter of 11 October 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the excessive length of the proceedings. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 2,300, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicant 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 invites 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.”
The applicants expressed either the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were unacceptably low and therefore refused the amounts proposed by the Government, or did not send any comments on the matter.
2. 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 Articles 6 § 1, 9, 13 and 14 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, 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, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
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 TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application no.
Applicants
35612/04
S.C. ‘NH INTERNATIONAL SERVICE’ S.R.L.
23311/05
Mihai MÂNDRU
Anişoara TÂRZIU
25485/06
Ana APREOTESEI
Valeriu APREOTESEI
27079/07
Nicoleta Patricia ROHRLICH-BERGER
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy