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 } .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 } .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 } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .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. 61503/08 Ioan DUMITRESCU and Nicoliţa ENESCU 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 10 December 2008, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 May 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS The applicants, Mr Ioan Dumitrescu and Ms Nicoliţa Enescu, are Romanian nationals, who were born in 1924 and 1919, respectively, and live in Bucharest and Bâltane (Mehedinţi County), respectively. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their   Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The application had been communicated to the Government. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 31 March 1991 the applicants filed a request with the Greci Local   commission for the application of Law   no.   18/1991 (“the   local   commission”) seeking reconstitution of ownership rights on agricultural and forestry land. The request remained unanswered until 10 August 2006, when the local commission granted it in part and issued property papers for the surface of land on which ownership rights were reconstituted. The decision was contested before the Mehedinţi County Commission for the application of Law   no.   18/1991 (“the county commission”), which rejected it on 14   December   2006. The applicants pursued their contestation by filing an administrative action with the Strehaia District Court. They sought that property rights be acknowledged as owners of an additional surface of land of 3.33   ha. On 31 October 2007 the court allowed the action in part and awarded the applicants ownership rights for 1.5 ha. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicant filed an appeal before the County Court of Mehedinţi. On 17 June 2008 the appellate court rendered its decision. It allowed the appeal in part ruling that the applicants were entitled to take possession of a surface of land amounting to 2.80 ha. The judgment became final. Thus, the proceedings began on 31 March 1991 and ended on 17   June   2008. However, the period to be taken into consideration began only on 20   June   1994, when Romania ratified the Convention. Accordingly, the period in question lasted 14 years for two levels of jurisdiction, of which 12   years and 2 months elapsed at administrative level. That said, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of the proceedings at the time. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Relying on the same Article, they raised further complaints on the outcome and the lack of fairness of the proceedings, alleging that the domestic courts had failed to conduct a proper examination of the evidence submitted to them. The applicants also complained that the manner in which the domestic authorities had dealt with their ownership claims amounted to an infringement of the guarantees laid down in Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. Lastly, they raised complaints under the same provision taken in conjunction with Article 14, alleging that they had been discriminated against by the application of delays provided in new restitution laws for processing their request. THE LAW A.     Complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of civil   proceedings The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings. They relied on 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 declaration After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 30   May   2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “The Government declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their   acknowledgement 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 applicants as just satisfaction the sum of EUR   4,500, jointly, 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 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. 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’ position By a letter of 24 September 2012 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the proposed amount was unacceptably low. 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 declaration 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); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v.   Poland (dec.) no.   11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no.   28953/03). 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 (see, for example, Frydlender   v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR   2000-VII; Cocchiarella   v.   Italy [GC], no.   64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR   2006 ‑ ....; Majewski   v.   Poland , no.   52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Wende and Kukówka v.   Poland , no.   56026/00, 10   May   2007). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the   Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (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 application (Article   37   §   1 in   fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the   Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March   2008). B.     Other complaints Referring to other Articles of the Convention and its   protocols, the   applicants complained of further aspects related to the above proceedings, as follows. Relying on Article 6 § 1, they raised further complaints on the outcome and the lack of fairness of the proceedings, alleging that the domestic courts had failed to conduct a proper examination of the evidence submitted to them. The applicants also complained that the manner in which the domestic authorities had dealt with their ownership claims amounted to an infringement of the guarantees laid down in Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. Lastly, they raised complaints under the same provision taken in conjunction with Article 14, alleging that they had been discriminated against by the application of delays provided in new restitution laws for processing their request. 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 declaration 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 application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan   Deputy Registrar   President