FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1883/16
Robert-Constantin PARNICA against Romania
and 7 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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 cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications 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 cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 November 2018.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(inadequate conditions of detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]
1883/16
27/01/2016
Robert-Constantin Parnica
19/11/1981
14/06/2018
2,700
6055/16
22/02/2016
Roman Luca
17/08/1980
07/02/2018
1,000
11060/16
04/04/2016
Ion Bibire
28/04/1963
13/06/2018
2,700
21216/16
19/05/2016
Ionuţ-Alin Gavrilă
20/11/1992
26/04/2018
2,700
27217/16
30/05/2016
Petre-Costel Mergea
15/11/1976
18/04/2018
2,700
27228/16
14/06/2016
Roberto-Edison Feraru
25/08/1980
21/06/2018
900
41941/16
22/08/2016
Mihalache Grigorie
30/09/1958
18/04/2018
4,500
53301/16
14/11/2016
Răzvan-Alexandru Marinescu
02/02/1987
25/06/2018
900
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy