CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 janvier 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB02EDC95 { width:190.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } 12 THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 24337/13 Tudor PĂROIU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   January 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Kristina Pardalos,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2013, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tudor Păroiu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 15 March 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for inter alia , fraud. After several remittals for re-examination, relinquishment of jurisdiction and granting of extraordinary appeal, the High Court of Cassation and Justice rendered the final decision on 5 February 2013. After communication of the present case to the respondent Government, they informed the Court that pending the above-mentioned proceedings, the applicant already lodged a request before the Court (application no.   4505/05), complaining of a violation of the reasonable time requirement guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 concerning this set of proceedings. The Court decided on 22 March 2011 to accept the Government’s unilateral declaration acknowledging the violation of Article 6 § 1 and ordering payment of just satisfaction and to strike out the application out of its list of cases, considering the matter resolved. At the time of the decision of the Court, the domestic proceedings were pending on appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant Romanian legal provisions are described in the judgment in the case of Vlad and Others v. Romania , nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, §§ 62 - 63, 68, 70 - 72 and 75, 26 November 2013. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings in which he was involved. THE LAW Complaining of the length of the criminal proceedings the applicant invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Government raised three preliminary exceptions, namely that the applicant had abused his right of individual petition due to the fact that he did not inform the Court of the existence of application no. 4505/04 dealing with the same matter, that the complaint was essentially the same as the one addressed in application no. 4505/05 and that the applicant lacked victim status. In addition, the Government contented that in the event that the exceptions raised are dismissed, the period to be taken into consideration in the present application is that of approximately two years, calculated from the Court’s decision to strike-out the application no. 4505/05, namely 22   March   2011 until the final decision rendered at domestic level on 5   February   2013. The applicant did not submit any comments regarding these allegations. The Court finds that it is not necessary to examine the Government’s preliminary exceptions, as in any event the complaint is inadmissible for the following reasons. The Court notes that the applicant had previously submitted another application (no. 4505/05) complaining about the length of the same criminal proceedings which at the time were still pending. The Court gave a decision on 22 March 2011 to strike the application out of its list of cases following the respondent Government’s unilateral declaration acknowledging the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of proceedings and ordering payment of just satisfaction, thus considering the matter resolved. The Court acknowledges that at the time of the Court’s decision of 22   March   2011 the domestic proceedings were still pending on appeal whilst at the date of the present application those proceedings came to an end by final decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice rendered on 5   February   2013. The Court thus considers that the period to be taken in consideration in the present application is that elapsed between the Court’s decision of 22   March   2011 and that of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 5   February   2013. Therefore, the proceedings in the instant case lasted for one year and ten months. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the length of the proceedings in the instant case was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement and is thus satisfied that it is appropriate to reject the application as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 February 2015. Marialena Tsirli   Dragoljub Popović Deputy Registrar   President