CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 mai 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sEC4A15D1 { width:193.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s60FBD4F9 { width:122.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .sC7070B3B { width:3.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8168E43 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s72F4128A { width:18.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s91B538A8 { width:12.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9921D957 { width:16.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s30048731 { width:14.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF760864F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s138B6D70 { height:44.55pt } .s3456E9E8 { width:3.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s901B8D2A { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC8EE2B33 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE1E810D7 { width:18.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7B867E0A { width:12.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6B2930F { width:16.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2C06E658 { width:14.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45217B2F { width:20.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5C3F6CC2 { height:53pt } .s9CEB4500 { height:38.9pt } .s9BC756B { height:53.75pt } .s302D6575 { height:39.65pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 56574/10 Elena STĂTESCU against Romania and 4 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   May 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Iulia Motoc, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about the divergent case-law of the domestic courts on the issue of the right to maternity allowance for each of the children born from multiple pregnancies. The applications were communicated to the Government on 6 October 2015. Between 11 March and 12 April 2016 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 each applicant 3,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 June 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   Represented by Date of receipt of Government’s declaration   Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount in EUR to be paid by the respondent State   56574/10 31/08/2010 Elena STĂTESCU 10/12/1973 Păușești Măglași   12 April 2016 15 March 2016 3,000 (three thousand)   6889/14 13/02/2014   Monica Simona MELINTE 16/10/1981 Târgu Neamț Mariana SOFRONIA 12 April 2016 22 March 2016 3,000 (three thousand)   30880/14 07/04/2014 Sorinel Nicuşor SOOS 09/02/1972 Petroșani   Radu Ciprian HARJA 12 April 2016 11 March 2016 3,000 (three thousand)   56284/14 04/08/2014 Ionela Bianca CANTEMIR 12/10/1980 Iași Gabriela PĂDURARIU 1 April 2016 14 March 2016 3,000 (three thousand)   12696/15 03/03/2015 Daniela Liana VEREȘ 05/05/1974 Cluj Napoca   Flavia Lucia MOISE 1 April 2016 7 April 2016 3,000 (three thousand)