CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 juin 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 } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76C3402B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:40.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-26.25pt; text-align:justify } .s9925F3A6 { width:22.25pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC3A3096D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:40.45pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:-26.25pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s533B4870 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#0000ff } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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. 44027/07, 29469/08 and 35718/08 Florentina Cecilia NICOLA and Others against Romania     The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   June   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 on 5 October 2007, 11   June and 16 July 2008 respectively, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ replies to the declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Romanian nationals. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. All applications concern the length of civil proceedings in which the applicants were either defendants or respondents. The length of the proceedings was of: -                12 years, 9 months and 17 days for three levels of jurisdiction for an action seeking to establish ownership over immovable property in case no. 44027/07; -                6 years, 2 months and 14 days for three levels of jurisdiction for an action seeking to establish ownership over immovable property in case no. 29469/08 and -                8 years, 5 months and 8 days for three levels of jurisdiction for a criminal complaint against a third party with joint civil claims in case no. 35718/08. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicants also raised various other complaints in respect of the same sets of proceedings, namely regarding the outcome and the fairness of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (all applications) and regarding alleged violations of property rights over immovable property or alleged pecuniary rights (all applications) under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings The applicants complained about the length of the domestic proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 1.     The Government’s unilateral declarations 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)     NICOLA v. Romania (no. 44027/07) The application was lodged on 5 October 2007 by Florentina Cecilia Nicola and Florentina Sandra Viorica Nicola, born in 1935 and 1973 respectively and residing in Bucharest. By letter of 21 July 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows: “The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of the proceedings. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicants as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 3,500, amount which it considers 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 applicants 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.” b)     TOMUTIU v. Romania (no. 29469/08) The application was lodged on 11 June 2008 by Vera Tomuţiu, born in 1943 and residing in Bucharest, represented before the Court by Ms   D.   F.   Saracin, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. By letter of 5 January 2010, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows: “The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of the proceedings. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 1,230, amount which it considers 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.”   c)     TRANESCU v. Romania (no. 35718/08) The application was lodged on 16 July 2008 by Maria Trănescu, born in 1939 and residing in Râmnicu Vâlcea. By letter of 14 December 2009, the Government sent a unilateral declaration, providing as follows: “The Government declares, by a way of this unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the excessive length of the proceedings. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 2,100, amount which it considers 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.” 2.     The applicants’ positions The applicants expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government’s declarations were unacceptably low and therefore refused the amounts proposed by the Government. 3.     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. B.     Other complaints Referring to Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.   1 to 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