CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s53D63747 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sAF759458 { width:174.62pt; 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7B2264EC { height:78.8pt } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sD43B6D70 { height:41.65pt } .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 } .sB673203C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt } .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 } .sC52BE8B1 { height:42.5pt } .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 Applications nos. 14600/10 and 50017/10 Mihai DUMITRU against Romania and Nicolae PISĂU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   November   2012 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 4   March   2010 and 4   August   2010 respectively, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant in the first case, Mr Mihai Dumitru, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Bârlad. The applicant in the second case, Mr Nicolae Pisău, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their   Agent, Mrs Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Both applications concern the length of criminal and civil proceedings, respectively, in which the applicants were involved. They relied on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. On the dates tabulated below the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Romania in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay them the sums indicated below to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the   Government undertook 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 cases. THE LAW 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 applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case title Introduction date Applicant’s name, date of birth, place of residence, name of representative (if any) Date of the Government’s declaration Date of the applicant’s declaration Sum agreed upon as friendly settlement (Euros) 1. 14600/10 DUMITRU v. Romania 4 March 2010 Mihai DUMITRU 28 July 1950, Bârlad, Vaslui County. 28 March 2012 8 December 2011 1,600 2. 50017/10 PISĂU v. Romania 4 August 2010 Nicolae PISĂU 18 October 1955, Bucharest. 5 January 2012 25 November 2011 2,000