CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 décembre 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sAF759458 { width:174.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 32623/06 Ion AVRAM against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   December   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 application lodged on 4 August 2006, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 June 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Ion Avram, is a Romanian national, who was born in   1937 and lives in Bruxelles. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.I. Igreţ, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their   Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The application was communicated to the Government. On 18 February 2002 the applicant filed a civil action with a view to obtain compensation for damages following the abusive conviction and seizure of personal assets and real property in 1981. By a letter of 24 February 2012 the applicant submitted to the Court the decision on appeal on points of law delivered by the High   Court of Cassation and Justice on 7 February 2012, whereby the judgment on appeal had been quashed and the case remitted to the appellate court. To this date the overall length of the civil proceedings amounts to ten   years and nine   months. During this lapse of time, the case was heard before three degrees of jurisdiction in three procedural cycles. 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. On 27   June   2012 following unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. “The Government declares, by a way of the present unilateral declaration, its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings engaged by the applicant. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 3,200, 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 the personal account 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 to 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.” On 6 September 2012 the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. THE LAW The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case can be considered as an implied friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore 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. 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 pursuant to Article   39 of the Convention.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan   Deputy Registrar   President