THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 57817/00 by Marilena Carmen CONSTANTIN against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section), sitting on 5 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mrs E. Fura-Sandström , President , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr E. Myjer , Mr David Thór Björgvinsson , Mrs I. Ziemele , Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2000,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Marilena Carmen Constantin, is a Romanian national, who was born in Romania and lives in the United States of America . She is represented before the Court by Adrian Vasiliu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest . The respondent Government are represented by Mrs R. PaÅŸoi, agent of the Government.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

In 1987 the house and adjacent plot of land owned by the applicant was confiscated by the People ’ s Municipal Council of Bucharest.

On 23 January 1997, the General Municipal Council of Bucharest concluded a contract under which the property was sold to the tenants of the house.

On 18 April 1997 the District Court of Bucharest ruled that the property at issue had been unlawfully confiscated and ordered the Local Municipal Council of Bucharest and the State enterprise managing the housing fund to surrender the ownership of the property to the applicant. No appeal was lodged and the decision became final.

On 22 July 1997 the mayor of Bucharest , by administrative decision, ordered that the above property was to be returned to the applicant. However, in the same decision the mayor declared that the sale of the property to the tenants on 23 January 1997 made its restitution to the applicant impossible.

On 10 October 1997 the applicant lodged with the District Court of Bucharest an action against the General Municipal Council of Bucharest and the new owners of the property (the former tenants) seeking a declaration that the contract under which the property had been sold to the former tenants was null and void. The applicant also relied in her action on the judgment of 18 April 1997 confirming her ownership of the house.

On 16 June 1998, the District Court rejected the action on the ground that the contract of sale between the Public Administration for the Housing Fund and the tenants had been lawfully concluded under Law no. 112/1995 and had entered into force before 19 February 1997, the date on which the applicant lodged her original action with the District Court of Bucharest. The court also found that, pursuant to Law no. 112/1995, the tenants of the house had been entitled to request that the house be sold to them after six months had passed from the date of entry into force of the above law. The court finally observed that the time-limit had expired in August 1996, whilst the contract of sale had been concluded in January 1997. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

On 26 March 1999 the Regional Court of Bucharest rejected the appeal for the reasons given by the court of first instance. The applicant lodged with the Bucharest Court of Appeal an appeal in cassation, arguing that both parties to the contract of sale had acted in bad faith by concluding the contract since, at the date of the conclusion of the contract, they had been aware of the fact that the entire house was under litigation.

On 30 November 1999 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in its final decision, rejected the appeal after having accepted that the defendants had acted in good faith and that no other ground for nullity of the contested contract could be found.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained, invoking in substance Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that on account of the non-enforcem ent of the judgment of 18 April 1997 her right to have her civil rights determined by a court was violated.

2. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the dismissal of her action for annulment of the contract under which the tenants purchased the property which had been returned to her by virtue of the earlier judgment of 18 April 1997, constituted an unjustified interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.

THE LAW

On 28 April 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ Je soussigné, M e Adrian VASILIU, représentant de la requérante, note que le gouvernement roumain est prêt à verser à M me Marilena Carmen Constantin, à titre gracieux, la somme de 120 000 euros en vue d ’ un règlement amiable de l ’ affaire ayant pour origine la requête susmentionnée pendante devant la Cour européenne des Droits de l ’ Homme.

Cette somme, qui couvrira aussi les frais et dépens, sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de [la décision] de la Cour rendu e conformément à l ’ article 39 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l ’ Homme. A compter de l ’ expiration dudit délai et jusqu ’ au règlement effectif de la somme en question, il sera payé un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage.

J ’ accepte cette proposition et renonce par ailleurs à toute autre prétention à l ’ encontre de la Roumanie à propos des faits à l ’ origine de ladite requête. Je déclare l ’ affaire définitivement réglée.

La présente déclaration s ’ inscrit dans le cadre du règlement amiable auquel le Gouvernement et la requérante sont parvenus.

[ ... ] “

On 1 st August 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ Je soussignée, Beatrice RAMAŞCANU, agente du gouvernement roumain auprès de la Cour européenne des Droits de l ’ Homme, déclare que le gouvernement roumain offre de verser à M me Marilena Carmen Constantin , à titre gracieux, la somme de 120 000 euros en vue d ’ un règlement amiable de l ’ affaire ayant pour origine la requête susmentionnée pendante devant la Cour eu ropéenne des Droits de l ’ Homme.

Cette somme couvrira aussi les frais et dépens et sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de [la décision] de la Cour rendu e conformément à l ’ article 39 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l ’ Homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s ’ engage à verser, à compter de l ’ expiration de celui-ci et jusqu ’ au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra rè glement définitif de l ’ affaire.

[ ... ] “

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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Santiago Quesada Elisabet Fura-Sandström Registrar President