CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 mars 2011

.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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sC7411871 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s47BA2785 { width:188.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 45201/08 by Anica BĂDILĂ against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   March 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 September 2008, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Anica Bădilă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bucharest. She was represented before the Court by Ms   C.   G. Toma, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 18 March 1998, the former owner of the apartment bought by the applicant under Law no. 112/1995 brought civil proceedings for the recovery of possession of the apartment in question, together with a claim for the eviction of the applicant. By a final judgment of 12 March 2008, the Bucharest Court of Appeal found for the former owner and ordered the applicant to vacate the apartment. The overall length of the civil proceedings amounted to nine years, eleven months and twenty-seven days, before three degrees of jurisdiction in two procedural cycles. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the civil proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirements. Relying on the same provision, she complained that the conduct of the proceedings had been unfair. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 claiming that the amount of the pecuniary compensation was insufficient and thus in breach of her property rights. THE LAW On 6 December 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:   “I, Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, agent of the Romanian Government before the European Court of Human Rights, declare that the Government of Romania offer to pay, ex gratia to Ms Anica Bădilă, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 2,400 euros (two thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.   This sum will be converted into New Romanian Lei (RON) at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 14 January 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:   “I, Cristina Georgeta Toma, note that the Government of Romania are prepared to pay ex gratia to Ms Anica Bădilă, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 2,400   euros (two thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.   This sum will be converted into New Romanian Lei (RON) at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.   Having consulted my client, I would inform you that she accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. She declares 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 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar   President