THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51391/12
Sonia GRÜNFELD
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 December 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Sonia Grünfeld, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Gherla. She was represented before the Court by Mr B. Miron, a lawyer practising in Cluj Napoca.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained about the conditions of her detention in Gherla Prison, in particular the material conditions, the prison work conditions and the conditions of transport of prisoners. She relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
On 4 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the attempts to reach a friendly settlement had failed, by a letter of 23 December 2013 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.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, as regards the material conditions of the applicant’s detention at Gherla Penitentiary.
The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant, Mrs. Sonia Mirela Grünfeld, as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 5.400, 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 the personal account 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 undertakes 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 to rule, in respect of the above mentioned complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, that the examination of the present application is no longer justified and to apply Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention accordingly.”
The applicant, who was informed of the unilateral declaration, did not comment on the Government’s undertakings.
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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration 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).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 of the Convention because of the conditions of detention (see, for example, Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, § 195, 24 July 2012).
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)).
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).
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 3 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.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy