THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41688/07
SC ALEX PROD COM SRL
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 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 14 August 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 February 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
The applicant is a private Romanian company, which was represented before the Court by Mr Tănase Marinescu Petre.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The application concerns the alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to access to court on account of having its action dismissed due to the failure to pay stamp duty and because its request for concession on stamp duty was dismissed by the court.
B. Relevant domestic law
Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning stamp duty, namely Law No. 146/1997 on stamp duty (as amended by Law No. 195/2004) and Ordinance No. 2214/1997 concerning the enforcement of Law No. 146/1997 are given in Iorga v. Romania (no. 4227/02, §§ 22-25, 25 April 2007).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of effective access to court due to the amount of court fees imposed. This provision reads as follows:
“...In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 February 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 declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their acknowledgement of the existence of a violation of the right to access to a court. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant, as just satisfaction the total sum of EUR 3,240 (three thousand two hundred forty) euros, 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 indicated 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 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.”
By a letter of 26 March 2013, the applicant indicated in substance that it was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the compensation offered by the Government was not satisfactory.
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 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; 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 one’s right to access to a court (Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, §§ 39-43, ECHR 2006‑VII (extracts); Iorga v. Romania, no. 4227/02, §§ 47-51, 25 April 2007); Adam v. Romania, no. 45890/05, §§ 29-32, 3 November 2009; and Rusen v. Romania, no. 38151/05, §§ 35‑40, 8 January 2009).
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 this 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).
Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.
Finally, the Court notes 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 regarding the right to access to a court 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