THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26894/06
by Eusebiu TUDOR
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 March 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 application lodged on 12 June 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 January 2010 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:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Eusebiu Tudor, a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in the United Kingdom. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan‑Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The case mainly concerned the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant for tax evasion and smuggling of goods. The proceedings started on 25 June 1995 when the applicant was arrested. On 19 June 1996 he was released from pre-trial detention. The criminal proceedings ended on 13 December 2005 when the High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld the judgment of the Military Court of Appeal whereby the applicant was convicted to five years of imprisonment for tax evasion and smuggling.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings.
2. He also complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the lack of competence of the military courts to adjudicate his case.
3. Finally he complained under Article 7 of the Convention that he did not have active standing for the crime of tax evasion and that the crime of smuggling had been decriminalized at the time of his conviction.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of ...any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By a letter dated 8 January 2010 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 a way of this unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 of the Convention. The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 3,600, 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 at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts 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 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”
In a letter of 1 July 2010 the applicant restated his initial claims for just satisfaction, and refused the amounts proposed by the Government.
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 applicant wishes 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; and 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 a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Abramiuc v. Romania, no. 37411/02, §§103-109, 24 February 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 complaint (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 this complaint (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.
2. Referring to Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention, the applicant complained of further aspects related to the criminal 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 application 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 unilateral declaration in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy