THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9571/06
Marioara TRUFASU against Romania
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 16 February 2006, 7 June 2006, 4 November 2008 and 21 September 2009 respectively,
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 the declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Romanian nationals. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Irina Cambrea, Co-Agent, 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 proceedings in which the applicants were either defendants or respondents. The length of the proceedings was of:
- nine years for three levels of jurisdiction for an action seeking to establish ownership over immovable property in case no. 9571/06;
- nine years for three levels of jurisdiction for a dispute between private parties in case no. 25099/06;
- nine years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction for an action seeking to establish ownership over immovable property in case no. 54443/08 and
- seven years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction for an action seeking to establish ownership over immovable property in case no. 51954/09.
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, namely regarding the fairness and outcome of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and alleged violations of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
1. The Government’s unilateral declarations
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.
a) Trufaşu v. Romania (no. 9571/06)
The application was lodged on 16 February 2006 by Mărioara and Oana Mădălina Trufaşu, born in 1955 and 1979 respectively and residing in Bucharest.
By letter of 23 March 2011, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the proceedings engaged by the parties. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicants as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 2,800 jointly, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicants 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 invites 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.”
b) Ichim v. Romania (no. 25099/06)
The application was lodged on 7 June 2006 by Gheorghe and Otilia Ichim, born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and residing in Săcele.
By letter of 15 April 2011, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of a violation of the right of the applicants Gheorghe Ichim and Otilia Ichim to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the reasonable time of the civil proceedings engaged by the parties. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicants as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) jointly, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicants 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 invites 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.”
c) Ivan v. Romania (no. 54443/08)
The application was lodged on 4 November 2008 by Mărioara Ivan, born in 1955 and residing in Bucharest. She was represented before the Court by Mr Ion Virgil, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
By letter of 18 March 2011, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 2,800, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicants 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 invites 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.”
d) Papp v. Romania (no. 51954/09)
The application was lodged on 21 September 2009 by Eugen Papp, born in 1951 and residing in Satu-Mare.
By letter of 12 October 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows:
“The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of the domestic proceedings. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 1,550, amount which it considers 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicants 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 invites 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
The applicants who replied expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were unacceptably low and therefore refused the amounts proposed by the Government.
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 Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, 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
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.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
List of applications
1. 9571/06 Trufasu v. Romania
2. 25099/06 Ichim v. Romania
3. 54443/08 Ivan v. Romania
4. 51954/09 Papp v. Romania
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy