CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mai 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD1F936F5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s14896025 { width:20.27pt; display:inline-block } .s7CBF8D49 { width:183.31pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 2425/04 and 48738/07 by Alexandru GEORGESCU and Constantin MĂNESCU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   May   2011 as a Committee composed of:   Egbert Myjer, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged respectively on 24   November   2003 and 1 November 2007, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 10   September   2009 and 3   December   2009 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Romanian nationals. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Both applications concern mainly the length of criminal proceedings against the applicants for various criminal offences. In both cases the length of the proceedings exceeds nine years. In respect of application no.   2425/04, the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. COMPLAINTS 1.     Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of the length of proceedings. 2.     Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   2425/04 also complained about the legality of the pre-trial detention. 3.     Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 7, and 13 of the Convention the applicant in application no. 2425/04 also complained about an infringement of his right to a fair trial, the assessment of facts and law, and a lack of an effective remedy against the courts’ decisions. 4.     Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant in application no. 48738/07 complained about the length of the proceedings which in his view amounted to psychological torture. THE LAW A.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings. 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...” 1.     The Government’s unilateral declarations Following unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations, 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.     GEORGESCU v. Romania (no. 2425/04) The application was lodged on 24   November   2003 by Georgescu   Alexandru, born on 14   August   1955, in   Craiova, residing in Bucharest, Romania. By letter dated 10   September   2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration providing as follows: “The Government declares – by a way of this unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings.     The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 3,400, amount which it considers reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. This sum is to cover all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the costs and expenses resulting from the domestic proceedings until and including the date of the Court’s acceptance of the present unilateral declaration, 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 Court’s 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”. By letter dated 9 November 2009, the applicant refused to accept the amount indicated in the Government’s proposal. He stated that he found the proposed amount to be unacceptably low in comparison with the costs and expenses he had incurred. b.     MĂNESCU v. Romania (no. 48738/07) The application was lodged on 1   November   2007 by Mănescu   Constantin, born on 19   April   1949, in Turburea, residing in Turburea, Gorj County, Romania. By letter dated 3 December 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration providing as follows: “The Government declares – by a way of this unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings.     The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 2,900, amount which it considers reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. This sum is to cover all pecuniary and non-pecuniary 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.” By letter dated 28 January 2010, the applicant stated that he is satisfied with the amount proposed by the Government to cover the pecuniary, as well as non-pecuniary damage he had sustained . 2.     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. With respect to application no. 2425/04, since the proceedings concerned are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court’s strike-out decision is without prejudice to use by the applicant of other remedies to obtain redress for any delay in the proceedings which may occur after the date of this decision. B.     Other Complaints Relying on Articles 3, 5, 6 § 1, 7 and 13 of 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 Tsirli   Egbert Myjer   Deputy Registrar   President