CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 janvier 2010

.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 } .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 } .s548F61FD { width:171.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28178/05 by Ovidiu CARAGEA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 2005, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ovidiu Caragea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Târgu Jiu. He was represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Măgdoiu, a lawyer practising in Tămăşeşti. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R. H. Radu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 9 October 1997 the employees of the company of which the applicant was the director brought criminal proceedings against the applicant, among others, for damages caused as a result of trading company stocks. On 20 October 1997 the applicant was placed under arrest on remand. He was released on 4 November 1997. By an order of 17 December 2004, the Gorj Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation against the applicant on the ground that although he had caused damages to the company, the action brought by the employees against him had been barred by time. By a final decision of 23 May 2005 the Gorj County Court upheld on the merits the Gorj Prosecutor’s Office order. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of his arrest on remand. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness and the length of the proceedings. THE LAW On 11 May 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Romania offer to pay ex gratia 2,800 euros (two thousand and eight hundred euros) to Mr Ovidiu Caragea, represented by Mr Ion Măgdoiu, lawyer, 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 all damages, will be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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 them, 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.” On 12 May 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “I, Ion Măgdoiu, lawyer, representative of Mr Ovidiu Caragea, note that the Government of Romania are prepared to pay the applicant ex gratia the sum of 2,800   euros (two thousand and eight 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 all damages, will be converted into Romanian Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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