THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 21517/13 Marioara Elisabeta ANDRONIC against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Dragoljub Popović , President, Kristina Pardalos , Valeriu Griţco , judges,

and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2013 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 September 2014 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, Ms Marioara Elisabeta Andronic , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in TimiÈ™ oara . She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Anastasescu , a lawyer practising in Timi ÅŸ oara .

2 . The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

3 . The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman conditions of her detention, namely overcrowding, in which she was held for four months and twenty-three days .

4 . Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her which lasted eight years before three degrees of jurisdiction .

5 . Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the interception of her phone conversations was illegal as it lacked authorisation from a judge.

6 . On 20 March 2014 t he above complaints were communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

7 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 27 October 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue s raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“ Le Gouvernement déclare — au mo yen de la présente déclaration unilatérale — qu ’ il reconnait l ’ existence d ’ une vio lation de l ’ article 3 de la Convention qui découle des conditions de détention, nota mm ent la surpopulation dans le centre pénitentiaire de Arad, d ’ une violation de l ’ article 6 de la Convention qui découle d e l a durée déraisonnable de la procédure dans laquelle la requérante Mari oara Elisabeta Andronic a été imp liquée, ainsi que d ’ une vio lation de l ’ article 8 de la Convention qu i déco u le de l ’ inte rception de communications téléphoniques autorisées par le procureur.

Le Gouvernement déclare être prêt à verser à la partie requérante au titre de satisfaction équitable l a somme total e de 4 500 EUR, m ontant qu ’ il considère comme raisonnable au vu de l a ju risprudence de la Cour. Cette somme qui couvrira tout préjudice matériel et m oral ainsi que les frais et dépens, ne sera soumise à aucun impôt . E l le sera ver sée en lei roumains au taux applicable à la date du paiement sur le compte banc aire indique par la partie requérante, dans les tro i s mois suivant l a date de l a n otification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformémen t à l ’ article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l ’ Homme. A défaut d e règlement dan s 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 a celui de la facilite de prêt marginal de l a Banque centrale eu ropéenne, augmente de trois points de pourcentage.

Le Gouvernement invite respectueusement la Cour à dire que la poursuite de l ’ examen de l a requête n ’ est plus justif iée et à la rayer du rôle en vertu de l ’ article 37 § 1 (c) de la Convention. ”

8 . The applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that it did not offer her sufficient just satisfaction.

9 . 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”.

10 . It also recalls 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.

11 . To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( 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).

12 . The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 with respect to conditions of detention (see Iacov Stanciu v. Romania , no. 35972/05 , 24 July 2012 ), Article 6 § 1 with respect to one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, Vlad and Others v. Romania , no s . 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07 , 26 November 2013), as well as about Article 8 concerning the interception of one ’ s phone conversations authorised by the prosecutor (see Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (No. 2) , no. 71525/01, 26 April 2007) .

13 . 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)).

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 . The Court considers that this amount should be converted into Romanian lei at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

16 . 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).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article s 3, 6 § 1 and 8 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.

Marialena Tsirli Dragoljub Popović              Deputy Registrar President