THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38021/13
S.C. FORTUNA 2000 INTERNATIONAL S.R.L. against Romania
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Karen Reid, 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:
THE FACTS
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
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 excessive length of civil proceedings. 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 would constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration.
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 applications”.
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 the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment ([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 (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII and Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, §§ 131-133 and 161, 26 November 2013).
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 under Article 6 § 1 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 9 July 2015.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant
Date of birth / Date of registration
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount for pecuniary, non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses[1] per applicant/household (in euros)
38021/13
04/06/2013
S.C. FORTUNA 2000 INTERNATIONAL S.R.L.
09/12/2002
09/01/2015
17/03/2015
2,700
39336/13
10/06/2013
Irena Luminița CHELARIU
10/07/1965
07/01/2015
11/02/2015
3,240
75851/13
25/10/2013
FEDERALCOOP Constanţa
02/04/1949
08/01/2015
04/03/2015
1,620
76906/13
03/12/2013
Grigore STURZ
05/07/1958
Ianorica STURZ
26/10/1962
Household
Ioan OPREA
17/02/1937
Anica OPREA
10/07/1948
Household
Alexandru BOTICI
05/01/1948
Niculina BOTICI
11/12/1951
30/01/2015
16/03/2015
3,645
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant
Date of birth / Date of registration
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount for pecuniary, non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses[2] per applicant/household (in euros)
Household
Armand JINARU
26/10/1987
Ruxanda JINARU
17/12/1953
Household
Severian JURCA
02/08/1958
Mărioara JURCA
03/08/1967
Household
Gheorghe MARIȘ
20/04/1937
Silvia MARIȘ
03/06/1931
Ecaterina DESPI
09/11/1951
Household
Ionel PĂUN
11/11/1964
Ecaterina PĂUN
30/07/1967
Valentin Făgean
26/05/1947
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy