THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40958/06
Gheorghe Cornel GÎTA
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 January 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 21 August 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 6 December 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Cornel Gîta, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Brănişca. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Mincea, a lawyer practising in Deva.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 20 October 2011 the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the alleged breach of his right to access to court was communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
4. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 6 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:
“Le Gouvernement déclare - au moyen de la présente déclaration unilatérale - qu’il reconnait la violation de l’article 6 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales (la Convention) sous l’aspect du droit d’accès à un tribunal.
Le Gouvernement déclare être prêt à verser à M. Gheorghe Cornel Gîta à titre de la satisfaction équitable la somme de 2 700 EUR, montant qu’il considère comme 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 indiqué par la partie requérante, dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention. 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 à celui de la facilite de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage.
Le Gouvernement invite respectueusement la Cour à dire que la poursuite de l’examen de la requête n’est plus justifiée et à la rayer du rôle en vertu de l’article 37 § 1 c) de la Convention.”
5. The applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that it did not offer him sufficient just satisfaction.
6. 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”.
7. 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.
8. 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, 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 one’s right to access to court due to imposition of disproportionate stamp taxes before the domestic courts (see, for example, Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, 24 May 2006; and Beian v. Romania (no.2), no. 4113/03, 7 February 2008).
10. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, 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.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy