Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22121/06
Gheorghe DEJI-BROȘTEANU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about inconsistent case-law on the issue of the application of the restitution and compensation mechanism set forth by Law no. 9/1998 on the granting of compensation to Romanian citizens in respect of properties taken over by the Bulgarian State pursuant to the Craiova Treaty of 7 September 1940, more specifically, the failure to validate the decision of the local commission in charge of the implementation of the above law within the legal time-limit coupled with the subsequent rejection by the courts of his request for adjustment of the compensation in view of inflation,were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, due to the failure to validate the decision of the local commission in charge of the implementation of Law no. 9/1998 within the legal time-limit and due to the subsequent rejection of the applicant’s request for adjustment in view of inflation. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applicationout of the list of cases in accordance with Article
37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 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.
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts (see, for example, Brezovec v. Croatia, no. 13488/07, 29 March 2011).
Noting 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 (see Muşat and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 27514/06 and 2 others, 14 February 2019) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
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 and of the arrangements 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 11 April 2019.
Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
|
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration | Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 22121/06
23/05/2006 |
Gheorghe
Deji-Broșteanu 04/01/1937 |
27/09/2018 | 20/11/2018 | 810 |
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply