FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 33928/10 Jozsef Janos PAPDI against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 1 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. D e Gaetano , President, Egidijus KÅ«ris , Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2010 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 July 2015 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 Jozsef Janos Papdi , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Kisszallas . He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Stelli-Kis , a lawyer practising in Budapest .

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, M s C. Brumar , from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs . The Hungarian Government, which have been informed of the case in view of the applicant ’ s nationality, did not make use of their right to intervene under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings with civi l claims opened by him against a third party , with a lapse of time of eight years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction.

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 21 July 2015 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 th is unilateral declaration - their ackno wledgement of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings which is the object of the present application before the Court .

The Government are prepared to pay Mr. Jozsef Janos Papdi as just satisfaction, the sum of EUR 1, 890 , 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 bank account provided by the applicant within three months from the date of the notificat ion of the decision to strike the application out of the list of cases adopted by the Court . 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 th ree percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case . ”

7. By letter of 15 August 2015 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 recalls 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 recalls 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 examine d 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; 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 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; Abramiuc v. Romania, no. 37411/02, §§ 103-109, 24 February 2009 and Vlad and others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, §§ 133 and 154-156, 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 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 . In any event, 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, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia ( dec. ), nos. 75025/01 et al., 23 March 2006).

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 24 March 2016 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı Vincent A. De Gaetano              Deputy Registrar President