THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25031/09
Victor HRIHORCIUC
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Victor Hrihorciuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Iaşi.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2002 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Romanian Border Police and the Ministry of Interior claiming the reimbursement of a sum retained as tax from his military retirement allowance. By final decision of 19 May 2003 the Iaşi County Court ordered the reimbursement of the amount claimed by the applicant.
Following an extraordinary appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the proceedings were reopened and by final decision of 24 November 2008 the Iaşi County Court rejected the applicant’s claim.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention regarding his alleged property rights, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 regarding the discrimination made by national courts in similar situations.
THE LAW
On 26 March 2012 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Romania offer to pay, ex gratia, to Mr Victor Hrihorciuc, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 2,500 EUR (two thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
This sum, which is to cover all damages, will be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 16 February 2012 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Victor Hrihorciuc, note that the Government of Romania are prepared to pay me ex gratia, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 2,500 EUR (two thousand five hundred euros), to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to me.
This sum will be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Santiago QuesadaEgbert Myjer
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy