CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD61D3655 { width:22.7pt; display:inline-block } .s1FCAD576 { width:123.53pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 48729/16 Călin LINCAR against Romania   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   May 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Pere Pastor Vilanova, judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 August 2016, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 September 2020 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 Călin Lincar, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Oradea. He was represented before the Court by Mr   H.   Kádár , a lawyer practising in Oradea. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The application was communicated to the Government . THE LAW 4 .     The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention concerning a low amount of compensation received for a period of two weeks and two days (from 30   April to 5   May 2015) of unlawful detention. On 22 November 2015 the Bihor County Court found that the detention in question had been unlawful in so far as it had been ordered by a court despite the fact that the applicant had been conditionally released from prison. Consequently, in the final decision of 1 June 2016, the Oradea Court of Appeal awarded the applicant compensation of 6,000 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 1,300 euros (EUR) at that time) for unlawful detention. 5.     After the communication of the present application to the Government and the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court by a letter of 15 September 2020 that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. 6 .     They acknowledged the violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 of the Convention because of the low amount received by the applicant for his unlawful detention between 30 April and 5   May 2015. They offered to pay the applicant EUR 1,000 to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 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. 7.     They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. 8.     By a letter of 6 October 2020, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the grounds that the amount offered by the Government was too low. 9.     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”. 10.     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. It will, however, depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article   37   §   1 in   fine ). 11.     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 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; 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). 12.     The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the right to compensation for unlawful detention (see, for example, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §   182, ECHR   2012, Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia , nos. 52241/14 and 74222/14, §§ 22 and 23, 10 July 2018, and Mehmet Hasan Altan v.   Turkey , no.   13237/17, § 175, 20 March 2018, with further references). 13.     Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that both the Bihor County Court, in its decision of 22 November 2015, and the Government, in their unilateral declaration, acknowledged that the applicant’s detention in question had been unlawful and granted him compensation (see paragraphs 4 and 6 above). Admittedly, the total amount of compensation is lower than what the Court usually awards in cases similar to the present one. However, the Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the case, and taking into account the nature of the admissions contained in both the domestic decision and the Government’s unilateral declaration, this amount is acceptable. Consequently, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 14.     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 ). 15.     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 (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 16.     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 5 §§ 1 and 5 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 10 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Ilse Freiwirth   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer   Deputy Registrar   President