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 } .sB8DDA93A { width:152.22pt; display:inline-block } .sAFA34012 { width:196.47pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 33792/10 Andrei Sever MUREŞAN 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 9 June 2010, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 12 July 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 Andrei Sever Mureşan, is a Romanian and French national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Bucharest. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The French Government had not made use of their right to intervene under Article   36 of the Convention. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of a set of criminal proceedings. 4.     On 21 October 2015 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 12   July 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 wish to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement that, in the present case, the criminal proceedings in which the applicant was involved had exceeded a reasonable length, contrary to the requirements guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Having regard to the Court’s position with respect to affording just satisfaction to the accused in similar cases, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant Andrei Sever Mureşan EUR 3,780 (three thousand seven hundred eighty euros) in compensation for all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount. 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). 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 lists of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention”. 7.     By a letter of 10 October 2016, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the sum proposed by the Government in the unilateral declaration was too low. 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.     It also reiterates 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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. 10.     To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp.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 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 ‑ V and Vlad and Others v. Romania , nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, §   146, 26   November 2013). 12.     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)). 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.     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). 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