CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG28
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 janvier 2016
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0128DEC005004207
- Date
- 28 janvier 2016
- Publication
- 28 janvier 2016
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .s60EA9207 { width:177.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s863EC76E { width:219.61pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s85D7B88B { width:4.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s71943AAA { width:16.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26066BE5 { width:25.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3FAF4342 { width:15.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s407FDF4B { width:14.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE60AC552 { width:23.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sB5980E5B { width:4.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CFA3247 { width:16.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB1E4244A { width:25.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s305A9B13 { width:15.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA32E384D { width:14.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA43A47F5 { width:23.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB82FFD44 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-before:always; font-size:8pt } .sB2941CA4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 50042/07 Ion HOGOIU and Others against Romania and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   January   2016 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the 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 Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of the unilateral declaration. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it 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 applications”. Thus, it may strike out applications 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 cases to be continued (see the principles emerging from the Court’s case-law, and in particular the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment ([GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI)). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 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; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 February 2016.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)     No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant / household (in euros) [i]       50042/07 29/10/2007   Household (3 applicants) Ion HOGOIU 18/06/1950 Liviu-Petre HOGOIU 23/09/1982 Oana-Mariana HOGOIU 27/11/1984   Household (3 applicants) Țipilica DIACONU 19/08/1963 Edmond-Ionuț DIACONU 15/11/1984 Andrei-Răzvan DIACONU 30/03/1986   02/07/2014 12/10/2015 1,620       21496/11 25/03/2011   Household (3 applicants) Marian CRĂCIUN 02/09/1975 Adriana CRĂCIUN 04/08/1974 Săndina CRĂCIUN 21/07/1953   Cristina VLAD 26/08/1979   Maria ANDREI 18/11/1936   20/08/2015 12/11/2015 1,890     64967/13 04/10/2013 Ronaldo BARTOLUCCI 15/03/1957   26/08/2015 06/11/2015 450     73489/13 15/11/2013 Household Cornel COJOCARU 16/08/1957 Emanuela COJOCARU 16/07/1972       29/07/2015 11/09/2015 2,160     4370/14 19/12/2013   Household (2 applicants) Șerban-Mihai-Constantin FLORIȚA 10/01/1947 Corina Eugenia FLORIȚA 15/11/1947   Household (2 applicants) Ioana MISĂILĂ 23/06/1936 Daniela-Iulia-Ioana BURNEI 03/04/1968   Household (2 applicants) Ingrid-Wilfede ZIEGLER 10/03/1985 Constanța-Stela ZIEGLER 05/03/1950   Grigore IONISIE 06/01/1951   Ioan ISPAS 05/01/1947     Adriana AVRAM 18/07/1955   Marius-Ilie MĂTIEȘ 05/05/1947   Tiberius Josef VILICS 21/10/1954     Constantin MORAR 01/02/1934   Mărioara HAVRINCEA 08/09/1950   Ada BACIU 21/12/1956   03/08/2015 11/09/2015 990     11086/14 29/01/2014 Dumitru CANĂ 19/02/1952   17/08/2015 06/11/2015 1,080   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 28
- Date
- 28 janvier 2016
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0128DEC005004207
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral