THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43693/05
Ioan LORINCZ against Romania
and 13 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 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 applications lodged on the dates tabulated below,
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’ replies, if any, to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants are Romanian nationals whose details are tabulated below. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
All applications concern the length of civil or criminal proceedings in which the applicants were involved, ranging from over six to over twelve years.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicants also raised various other complaints in respect of the same sets of proceedings.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the civil or the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of /his civil rights and obligations or of/ ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
1. The Government’s unilateral declarations
By letters sent on the dates tabulated below 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.
By these declarations the Romanian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article 6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below. The relevant part of the declarations reads as follows:
“The Government declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their acknowledgement of the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings / of the existence of a violation [of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention] regarding the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings.
The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant[s] as just satisfaction the sum of [sums tabulated below], amount which they consider 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] to the personal account indicated by the applicant[s] 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 invite 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. The applicants’ positions
In reply, the applicants in applications nos. 49226/07, 49594/08, 410/09, 19204/09 and 27072/09 expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were unacceptably low and therefore refused the amounts proposed by the Government. The applicants in the remaining applications did not send any comments on the matter.
3. 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 other articles of the Convention and its protocols, 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 as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
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.
Santiago QuesadaEgbert Myjer
RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Length of proceedings
Levels of jurisdiction
Date of the unilateral declaration and compensation offered (euros)
43693/05
29/11/2005
Ioan LORINCZ
06/12/1951
Stănceni
7 years and
1 month
3 levels
6/04/2012
1,200
42891/07
23/09/2007
Ioana Luminiţa STOICA
26/01/1951
Bucureşti
-represented by V. Bucur
7 years and
3 months
3 levels
26/03/2012
850
49226/07
02/11/2007
Floare GHIŢ
19/02/1955
Timişoara
12 years and
4 months
3 levels
28/02/2012
4,800
3797/08
12/01/2008
Florentina PLOAIE
08/10/1969
Iaşi
7 years
3 levels
24/02/2012
1,200
12652/08
06/03/2008
Alexandru Marian MATEI
15/08/1965
Bucureşti
-represented by F. A. Bogdea
10 years and
1 month
3 levels
27/02/2012
3,200
18791/08
04/04/2008
Toader Dorel GHECIU
07/03/1956
Ploieşti
Gheorghiţă GHECIU
25/08/1958
Ploieşti
-represented by C. G. Stănescu
1) 10 years and
9 months
3 levels
2) 8 years and
3 months
3 levels
26/02/2012
5,600 jointly
30347/08
13/06/2008
Ioana Domnica VASILIU BOLNAVU
23/01/1994
Bucureşti
Maria Jeana VASILIU BOLNAVU
18/02/1924
Bucuresti
-both represented by R. Boros-Toti
9 years and
11 months
3 levels
19/03/2012
1,800 jointly
44679/08
09/09/2008
Gheorghe PETRE
Bucureşti
-represented by G. Ion
7 years and
5 months
3 levels
23/04/2012
1,200
49594/08
01/10/2008
Nicolae MOCA
11/11/1965
Carei
-represented by A. S. Kolozsi
6 years and
10 months
3 levels
4/05/2012
1,200
410/09
18/12/2008
Ana CAPETTI
11/05/1949
Bucureşti
10 years and
7 months
3 levels
30/01/2012
3,600
19204/09
06/04/2009
S&D INTERNATIONAL EUROPE S.R.L.
Bucharest
(stricken-off)
Octav DAN (single shareholder of the first applicant)
12/10/1956
Bârlad
9 years and
5 months
2 levels
27/03/2012
3,200
27072/09
06/05/2009
Răsvan-Mihai DOBRESCU
07/11/1932
Bucureşti
12 years and
3 months
3 levels
27/03/2012
4,800
34144/09
11/06/2009
Floarea ORTACU
14/10/1962
Piteşti
Marian ORTACU
29/08/1960
Piteşti
8 years and
9 months
3 levels
23/04/2012
2,400 jointly
31884/11
11/05/2011
Vasile ISTICIOAIA
21/02/1966
Focşani
9 years and
5 months
3 levels
19/03/2012
2,400
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy