Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.80543/12
Dumitru CODREAN
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 January 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
EgidijusKūris,
Iulia AntoanellaMotoc, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 April 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, Mr DumitruCodrean, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1948. He died on 11 August 2014. His wife, Ms MarinelaCodrean, made a request to pursue the application on his behalf. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Koloszi, a lawyer practising in Oradea.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that the High Court of Cassation and Justice had not secured a fair trial, as it had re-examined the case to his disadvantage in his absence and without hearing any evidence. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 15 April 2014 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.
7. The declaration provided as follows [original French]:
“Le Gouvernement déclare – au moyen de la présente déclaration unilatérale – qu’il reconnait l’existence d’une violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention qui découle du défaut d’équité de la procédure pénale.
Le Gouvernement déclare être prêt à verser au requérant au titre de satisfaction équitable la somme totale de 2.700 EUR, montant qu’il considère comme raisonnable au vu de la jurisprudence de la Cour. Cette somme, qui couvrira tout préjudice matériel et moral ainsi que les frais et dépens, ne sera soumise à aucun impôt. Elle sera versée en lei roumains au taux applicable à la date du paiement sur le compte bancaire indiqué par la partie requérante, dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme. À 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 facilite de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage.
Le Gouvernement invite respectueusement la Cour à dire que la poursuite de l’examen de la requête n’est plus justifiée et à la rayer du rôle en vertu de l’article 37 § 1 (c) de la Convention.”
8. By a letter of 4 June 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that he had no guarantee that the Romanian courts would re-open the proceedings in the absence of a Court’s judgment finding a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Moreover, he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation proposed by the Government.
9. By a letter of 23 March 2016 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court about the applicant’s death and his wife’s intention to pursue the application (see paragraph 1 above).
10. The Government have not disputed that the applicant’s widow was entitled to pursue the application on his behalf and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise. Accordingly, the Court accepts the request of the applicant’s widow to pursue the application on behalf of her late husband.
11. The Court reiterates 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”.
12. It also reiterates 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.
13. To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
14. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reason of the reexamination of the case at cassation level without direct administration of evidence (see, amongst many other authorities, Găitănaru v. Romania, no. 26082/05, 26 June 2012).
15. As the applicant died after he had lodged his application (see paragraph 9 above), the Court considers that it is no longer necessary to address his argument concerning the re-opening of the criminal proceedings at domestic level (see paragraph 8 above).
16. 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 (see Hanu v. Romania, no. 10890/04, § 49, 4 June 2013; and Moinescu v. Romania, no. 16903/12, § 47, 15 September 2015) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
17. 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).
18. 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 (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
19. 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 21 February 2019.
Andrea Tamietti Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply