CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 octobre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .s1DA5892 { width:153.05pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 41317/04 by Aurelia BĂDUICĂ against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14   October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2004, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Aurelia Băduică, is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ploieşti. The Romanian Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Răzvan­Horaţiu   Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows: On 12   June   2001, the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the   Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest   District   Court, against the   representatives of the Open International University T.E. for fraud. She   accused them of having illegally organised graduate teaching in the   absence of the required accreditations. She also sought compensation for the   damage incurred, namely the reimbursement of the inscription fee that she had paid to the University. After repeated complaints about the length of the investigation, the   applicant received, on 14 October 2002, a letter from the Bucharest police informing her that on 23 August 2002 the file was sent to the   Prosecutor's Office for decision. In the absence of any solution in the case, the applicant submitted several other complaints about the length of the proceedings to the   hierarchically superior Prosecutor's Offices, to the President and to various ministries, but to no avail. On 27 May 2004, the applicant filed a civil action against the   Prosecutor's Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, seeking compensation for the length of the proceedings. On 15 June 2004, the High Court returned her action on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to examine on the merits civil actions. The criminal complaint is still pending before the Prosecutor's Office. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of fairness and about the length of the criminal proceedings instituted by her. THE LAW The Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, Agent of the Government of Romania before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Romania offer to pay ex gratia 3,500 (three thousand five hundred) euros to Ms Aurelia Băduică with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the respondent State's national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Ms Aurelia Băduică, note that the Government of Romania are prepared to pay me ex   gratia the sum of 3,500 (three thousand five hundred) euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the respondent State's national currency at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three   months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President