FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27029/06
Rodica TROFIN and Others against Romania
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 May 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). Also, as regards the application no. 27029/06, the complaints under Article 13 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy for excessive length of proceedings were communicated to the Government.
The applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention.
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 excessive length of civil proceedings with regard to all applications and in relation to application no. 27029/06 also admitted the lack of an effective remedy for excessive length of proceedings, at the material time, when the breach occurred. 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 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 clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 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 as regards the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings.
The applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the complaints listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill- founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 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 in so far as they concern the excessive length of civil proceedings, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2016.
Hasan BakırcıVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant / household
(in euros)[i]
27029/06
13/06/2006
Household (3 applicants)
Rodica TROFIN
28/10/1963
Alina TROFIN
31/03/1985
Gabriel Florin TROFIN
15/04/1983
Household (2 applicants)
Ainur HAGICALIL
22/04/1960
Aifer HAGICALIL
13/03/1981
Art. 13 – no effective remedy for excessive length
13/05/2014
26/06/2014
4,563
34004/08
11/07/2008
S.C. RUR PROD S.R.L.
16/07/1993
11/06/2014
3,000
29193/09
20/05/2009
Aurel MIRON
05/11/1940
24/07/2013
07/10/2013
2,800
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy