CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 janvier 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3635F015 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s8CD688D0 { width:19.2%; 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 } .sE72A2AC3 { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77A46D21 { width:18.18%; 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 } .s86332EC4 { width:17.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7B92D0A9 { width:19.16%; 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 } .sAA7C62D4 { width:19.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1C834A { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s183E9B22 { width:18.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s792BD0C7 { width:17.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA11FCDC8 { width:19.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19595/06 Stancu CHIRICĂ and Others against Romania (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   January 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7   March 2006, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 about inconsistent case-law on the issue of the application of the restitution and compensation mechanism set forth by Law no. 9/1998 on the granting of compensation to Romanian citizens in respect of properties taken over by the Bulgarian State pursuant to the Craiova Treaty of 7 September 1940, more specifically, the failure to validate the decision of the local commission in charge of the implementation of the above law within the legal time-limit coupled with the subsequent rejection by the courts of their request for adjustment of the compensation in view of inflation, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) on 7   March 2018. On 24 April 2018 the applicants informed the Court that the applicant Dumitru Chirică had died on 9 November 2005 and that his heirs wished to pursue the application. To their request they joined copies of the death certificate and a document attesting to the quality of heirs. THE LAW 1.     The complaint submitted by Mr Dumitru Chirică In view of the fact that the applicant Dumitru Chirică had died four months before the lodging, in his name, of the application to the Court, the Government asked the Court to strike out the application in respect of this applicant in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. In accordance with the Court’s practice and with Article 34 of the Convention, applications can only be lodged by, or in the name of, individuals who are alive (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 96, ECHR 2014). The Court notes from the death certificate submitted by the applicants that Mr Dumitru Chirică had died before the lodging of the current application in his name. Therefore, Mr Dumitru Chirică could not have lodged a valid application to the Court (see   Craciun and Others v.   Romania (dec.), no. 60593/08, § 9, 18 January 2018). It follows that the part of the application bearing the signature of Mr   Dumitru Chirică must be rejected as being incompatible ratione   personae with the provisions of the Convention pursuant to Article   35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2.     The unilateral declaration submitted by the Government in respect of the complaints raised by the remaining applicants The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaints lodged by the applicants Stancu Chirică, Mariana Chirică and Floarea Manea. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in respect of these applicants in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the violation of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention, due to the failure to validate the decision of the local commission in charge of the implementation of Law   no.   9/1998 within the legal time-limit and due to the subsequent rejection of the applicants’ request for adjustment in view of inflation. They offered to pay, jointly, to the above-mentioned applicants the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention in respect of these applicants. The amount 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 this amount within the above ‑ mentioned 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 case. The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the 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 application”. 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 case to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia , no. 13488/07, 29 March 2011). Noting 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 (see Muşat and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos.   27514/06 and 2 others, 14 February 2019) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (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 application (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list as regards the complaints raised by the applicants Stancu Chirică, Mariana Chirică and Floarea Manea. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares inadmissible the part of the application submitted on behalf of Mr   Dumitru Chirică; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein in respect of the remaining applicants; Decides to strike out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention the complaints lodged by the remaining applicants. Done in English and notified in writing on 20   February 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per application (in euros) [i] 19595/06 07/03/2006 (4 applicants) Stancu CHIRICĂ 19/04/1926 died on 26/06/2011 pursued by heir Ion CHIRICĂ   Mariana CHIRICĂ (former Mariana SĂRĂCIN) 23/09/1966   Floarea MANEA 16/10/1960   06/11/2019 04/12/2019 810 Dumitru CHIRICĂ 01/11/1937 died on 09/11/2005 - - -   [i] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.