LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
ION v. ROMANIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Doc ref: 9108/04, 18717/11, 24206/08, 24305/10, 24499/07, 26004/05, 28719/09, 32376/10, 33355/11, 38478/08, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-113447
Document date: September 11, 2012
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
ION v. ROMANIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
Doc ref: 9108/04, 18717/11, 24206/08, 24305/10, 24499/07, 26004/05, 28719/09, 32376/10, 33355/11, 38478/08, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-113447
Document date: September 11, 2012
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 9108/04 Constantin and Costin ION against Romania and 20 other applications (see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer , President, Luis López Guerra , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates tabulated below,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ replies to these declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Romanian nationals whose details are tabulated below. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
All applications concern the length of civil or criminal proceedings in which the applicants were involved, ranging from over six to almost thirteen years.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. The applicants also raised various other complaints in respect of the same sets of proceedings.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of proceedings
The applicants complained about the length of the civil or the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:
“In the determination of /his civil rights and obligations or of/ ... any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
1. The Government ’ s unilateral declarations
By letters sent on the dates tabulated below the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
By these declarations the Romanian authorities acknowledged that the length of the proceedings in the applicants ’ cases had not complied with the “reasonable time” requirement set down in Article 6 of the Convention. They also declared that they were ready to pay the applicants the sums tabulated below. The relevant part of the declarations reads as follows:
“The Government declare, by way of this unilateral declaration, their acknowledgement of the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings / of the existence of a violation [of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention] regarding the excessive delay in the domestic proceedings.
The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant[s] as just satisfaction the sum of [sums tabulated below], 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] to the personal account indicated by the applicant[s] within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. 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 three percentage points. Therefore, the Government respectfully invite the Court rule that the examination of the present application is no longer justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
2. The applicants ’ positions
In reply, the applicants expressed the view that the sums mentioned in the Government ’ s declarations were unacceptably low and therefore refused the amounts proposed by the Government.
3. The Court ’ s assessment
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”.
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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations 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).
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 ( Abramiuc v. Romania , no. 37411/02, §§103-109, 24 February 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).
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 complaints on length of proceedings (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).
Accordingly, this part of the applications should be struck out of the list.
B. Other complaints
Referring to other articles of the Convention and its protocols, the applicants complained of further aspects related to the above proceedings.
Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declarations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of the proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they relate to the above complaint in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Egbert Myjer Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
No .
Application No .
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Length of proceedings
Levels of jurisdiction
Date of the unilateral declaration and compensation offered (euros)
9108/04
ION v. Romania
09/12/2003
Constantin ION
12/03/1937
Bucure ÅŸ ti
Costin ION
16/07/1972
Bucure ÅŸ ti
6 years and 4 months
3 levels
13/12/2011
600 jointly
26004/05
MÄ‚RUNÅ¢IÅž v. Romania
11/07/2005
Constantin MÄ‚RUNÅ¢IÅž
26/02/1951
Ciobănoiaia
7 years
3 levels
27/02/2012
1,200
4837/07
COSTEA v. Romania
15/12/2006
Octavian Dumitru COSTEA
17/01/1952
Grosani
9 years and 2 months
3 levels
23/01/2012
2,400
24499/07
DINCÄ‚ v. Romania
07/06/2007
Cristian George DINCÄ‚
01/05/1953
Bucuresti
6 years and 1 month
2 levels
27/02/2012
2,000
24206/08
ALBU v. Romania
20/05/2008
Eugenia ALBU
11/11/1938
Cluj-Napoca
Sanda-Lucia ALBU
31/05/1963
Cluj-Napoca
Călin-Mircea ALBU
04/04/1965
Cluj-Napoca
-represented by the second applicant
9 years and 11 months
3 levels
21/02/2012
3,200 jointly
38478/08
IONESCU v. Romania
31/07/2008
Leonida IONESCU
14/06/1933
BucureÅŸ ti
8 years and 7 months
3 levels
21/02/2012
2,400
49072/08
VOD Ä‚ v. Romania
03/10/2008
Lucia Liana Valentina VOD Ä‚
25/04/1962
Cluj-Napoca
-represented by Ms Camelia Luminita MATIS
7 years and 7 months
3 levels
28/03/2012
1,600
50368/08
GURAN and STANCIU v. Romania
10/10/2008
Virgil GURAN
12/05/1965
Campina
Elena STANCIU
03/03/1968
Valea Doftanei
-represented by Mr Dan Costin STEGÄ‚ROIU
8 years
3 levels
6/04/2012
1,450 jointly
826/09
PARASCHI V v. Romania
15/12/2008
Codrin Antoniu PARASCHIV
10/09/1971
Iasi
7 years and 1 month
3 levels
27/02/2012
1,200
8923/09
CHIRI ŢĂ v. Romania
06/02/2009
Costic ă CHIRI ŢĂ
24/10/1955
Vaslui
12 years and 8 months
3 levels
28/02/2012
5,600
28719/09
TUDOR v. Romania
22/04/2009
Petra TUDOR
24/11/1942
BucureÅŸ ti
7 years and 3 months
3 levels
19/03/2012
1,200
52514/09
ANTAL v. Romania
22/09/2009
Francisc ANTAL
16/03/1953
T â rgu-Mure ş
12 years and 1 month
3 levels
27/03/2012
3,400
53998/09
ANDREI v. Romania
29/09/2009
George ANDREI
20/12/1965
Buc ureÅŸti
Silvia-Tincuţ a ANDREI
21/10/1967
Buc ureÅŸti
10 years
3 levels
2/04/2012
3,200 jointly
57539/09
BOGDAN v. Romania
19/10/2009
Georgeta BOGDAN
24/10/1951
Oradea
6 years and 10 months
3 levels
24/04/2012
1,080
60924/09
BURLE
and others v. Romania
05/11/2009
Dumitru BURLE
20/08/1948
Oradea
Magdalena BURLE
24/08/1950
Oradea
Aurica BORA
06/01/1953
Oradea
Ana BURLE
12/01/1955
Oradea
-all represented by Mr Mircea GOLEA
11 years and 4 months
3 levels
13/03/2012
4,000 jointly
24305/10
BOLOÅž v. Romania
14/04/2010
Andrei Vasile BOLOÅž
05/06/2000
Târgu Mureş
-represented by Ms Crenguta LEAUA
6 years and 4 months
3 levels
1/02/2012
600
32376/10
MORARU v. Romania
02/06/2010
Aneta MORARU
Buc ureÅŸti
9 years
3 levels
5/04/2012
2,400
38800/10
SC COMPANY BORA BORA SRL DEVA v. Romania
01/07/2010
SC COMPANY BORA BORA SRL DEVA
Deva
- represented by Mr Mircea B ORA
10 years and 3 months
2 levels
1/02/2012
4,000
47147/10
NU Ţ U v. Romania
10/08/2010
Ion NU Ţ U
21/07/1959
Bucure ÅŸ ti
Maria NU Ţ U
06/09/1958
Bucure ÅŸ ti
7 years and 6 months
3 levels
5/04/2012
1,600 jointly
18717/11
ANA v. Romania
18/03/2011
Daniela ANA
07/07/1967
Luce
8 years and 7 months
3 levels
28/02/2012
2,000
33355/11
CIOBANU (IV) v. Romania
24/04/1997
Filofteia CIOBANU
12/05/1958
Bra ÅŸ ov
6 years and 8 months
2 levels
5/04/2012
2,500
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
