CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .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 } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .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 } .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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8CBA0935 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s1F3D7CCE { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sFE92E052 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s5B8637C { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s75145F2D { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sED1A34C5 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s2F406575 { height:39.95pt } .s13C8E8B1 { height:41.9pt } .sD2ED6D70 { height:41.85pt } .s46E96D70 { height:48.75pt } .sF503E8B1 { height:46.9pt } .sA9F84DFD { height:43pt } .sEA12756B { height:50.25pt } .s29BE6C23 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .s78B6B604 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .sCEE978D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 9108/04 Constantin and Costin ION against Romania and 20 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   September 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Egbert Myjer , President,   Luis López Guerra ,   Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates tabulated below, 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 these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are Romanian nationals whose details are tabulated below. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, 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 or criminal proceedings in which the applicants were involved, ranging from over six to almost thirteen years. 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. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them. A.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings The applicants complained about the length of the civil or the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows: “In the determination of /his civil rights and obligations or 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 By letters sent on the dates tabulated below 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. By these declarations the Romanian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article 6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below. The relevant part of the declarations reads as follows: “The Government declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their acknowledgement of the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings / of the existence of a violation [of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention] regarding the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings. The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant[s] as just satisfaction the sum of [sums tabulated below], amount which they consider 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] to the personal account indicated by the applicant[s] 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 invite 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 In reply, 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 other articles of the Convention and its protocols, 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 Decides to join the applications; 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     Appendix   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Length of proceedings Levels of jurisdiction Date of the unilateral declaration and compensation offered (euros)   9108/04 ION v.   Romania 09/12/2003 Constantin ION 12/03/1937 Bucureşti   Costin ION 16/07/1972 Bucureşti 6 years and 4 months 3 levels 13/12/2011   600 jointly   26004/05 MĂRUNŢIŞ v.   Romania 11/07/2005 Constantin MĂRUNŢIŞ 26/02/1951 Ciobănoiaia 7 years 3 levels 27/02/2012   1,200   4837/07 COSTEA v.   Romania 15/12/2006 Octavian Dumitru COSTEA 17/01/1952 Grosani 9 years and 2 months 3 levels 23/01/2012   2,400   24499/07 DINCĂ v.   Romania 07/06/2007 Cristian George DINCĂ 01/05/1953 Bucuresti 6 years and 1 month 2 levels 27/02/2012   2,000   24206/08 ALBU v.   Romania 20/05/2008 Eugenia ALBU 11/11/1938 Cluj-Napoca Sanda-Lucia ALBU 31/05/1963 Cluj-Napoca Călin-Mircea ALBU 04/04/1965 Cluj-Napoca   -represented by the second applicant 9 years and 11 months 3 levels 21/02/2012   3,200 jointly   38478/08 IONESCU v.   Romania 31/07/2008 Leonida IONESCU 14/06/1933 Bucureşti 8 years and 7 months 3 levels 21/02/2012   2,400   49072/08 VODĂ v.   Romania 03/10/2008 Lucia Liana Valentina VODĂ 25/04/1962 Cluj-Napoca   -represented by Ms   Camelia Luminita MATIS 7 years and 7 months 3 levels 28/03/2012   1,600   50368/08 GURAN and STANCIU v.   Romania 10/10/2008 Virgil GURAN 12/05/1965 Campina   Elena STANCIU 03/03/1968 Valea Doftanei   -represented by Mr   Dan Costin STEGĂROIU 8 years 3 levels 6/04/2012   1,450 jointly   826/09 PARASCHIV v.   Romania 15/12/2008 Codrin Antoniu PARASCHIV 10/09/1971 Iasi 7 years and 1 month 3 levels 27/02/2012   1,200   8923/09 CHIRIŢĂ v.   Romania 06/02/2009 Costică CHIRIŢĂ 24/10/1955 Vaslui 12 years and 8 months 3 levels 28/02/2012   5,600   28719/09 TUDOR v.   Romania 22/04/2009 Petra TUDOR 24/11/1942 Bucureşti 7 years and 3 months 3 levels 19/03/2012   1,200   52514/09 ANTAL v.   Romania 22/09/2009 Francisc ANTAL 16/03/1953 Târgu-Mureş 12 years and 1 month 3 levels 27/03/2012   3,400   53998/09 ANDREI v.   Romania 29/09/2009 George ANDREI 20/12/1965 Bucureşti   Silvia-Tincuţa ANDREI 21/10/1967 Bucureşti 10 years 3 levels 2/04/2012   3,200 jointly   57539/09 BOGDAN v.   Romania 19/10/2009 Georgeta BOGDAN 24/10/1951 Oradea 6 years and 10 months 3 levels 24/04/2012   1,080   60924/09 BURLE and others v.   Romania 05/11/2009 Dumitru BURLE 20/08/1948 Oradea Magdalena BURLE 24/08/1950 Oradea Aurica BORA 06/01/1953 Oradea Ana BURLE 12/01/1955 Oradea   -all represented by Mr Mircea GOLEA 11 years and 4 months 3 levels 13/03/2012   4,000 jointly   24305/10 BOLOŞ v.   Romania 14/04/2010 Andrei Vasile BOLOŞ 05/06/2000 Târgu Mureş   -represented by Ms   Crenguta LEAUA 6 years and 4 months 3 levels 1/02/2012   600   32376/10 MORARU v.   Romania 02/06/2010 Aneta MORARU Bucureşti 9 years 3 levels 5/04/2012   2,400   38800/10 SC COMPANY BORA BORA SRL DEVA v.   Romania 01/07/2010 SC COMPANY BORA BORA SRL DEVA Deva   -represented by Mr   Mircea BORA 10 years and 3 months 2 levels 1/02/2012   4,000   47147/10 NUŢU v.   Romania 10/08/2010 Ion NUŢU 21/07/1959 Bucureşti   Maria NUŢU 06/09/1958 Bucureşti 7 years and 6 months 3 levels 5/04/2012   1,600 jointly   18717/11 ANA v.   Romania 18/03/2011 Daniela ANA 07/07/1967 Luce 8 years and 7 months 3 levels 28/02/2012   2,000   33355/11 CIOBANU (IV) v.   Romania 24/04/1997 Filofteia CIOBANU 12/05/1958 Braşov 6 years and 8 months 2 levels 5/04/2012   2,500