CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mars 2017

.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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB57ABB22 { width:160.72pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1882/10 Viorel ISTRATE against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   March 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,   Iulia Motoc,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 November 2016 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 1.     The applicant, Mr Viorel Istrate, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Muntenii de Jos. He was represented before the Court by Ms I. Diaconu, a lawyer practising in Vaslui. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the composition of the bench of judges delivering the final judgment on the merits of his case was not “established by law”. 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 November 2016 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. 6.     The declaration provided as follows: “The Government declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 6, as regards the composition of the bench of judges delivering the judgment. The Government are prepared to pay Mr. Viorel Istrate as just satisfaction, the sum of EUR 3,240 (three thousand two hundred and forty euros), 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 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 (c) 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 invite 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.” 7.     By a letter of 4 January 2017 the applicant objected to the striking out of the application. He argued that the amount proposed did not offer him sufficient just satisfaction. 8.     The Court reiterates 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.” 9.     The Court also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government – even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. 10.     To this end, the Court will carefully examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin   Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no.   11602/02, 26   June   2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18   September 2007). 11.     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 fair hearing because the composition of the bench of judges delivering the final judgment on the merits of a case was not “established by law” (see, for example, Jenița Mocanu v.   Romania , no.   11770/08, §§ 37-42, 17 December 2013; Ignat v.   Romania, no.   58613/08, §§   22-27, 21 June 2016; and Loghin v. Romania, no.   1468/08, §§ 25-30, 21 June 2016). 12.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). 13.     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 ). 14.     The Court’s decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, the application to its list of cases, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see   Josipović   v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). 15.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 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 accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 13 April 2017.   Andrea Tamietti   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Deputy Registrar   President