FOURTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 22121\/06
\nGheorghe DEJI-BRO\u0218TEANU
\nagainst Romania<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Georges Ravarani, President,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,<\/p>\n
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23\u00a0May 2006,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
The applicant\u2019s details are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n
The applicant\u2019s 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\u00a0September 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 (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
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\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
The Government acknowledged the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 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\u2019s 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
\n37 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(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\u2019s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above\u2011mentioned 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.<\/p>\n
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.<\/p>\n
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The Court observes that Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n
\u201c… for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01 (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.\u00a0Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a075\u201177, ECHR 2003-VI).<\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
Noting the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Mu\u015fat and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 27514\/06 and 2 others, 14 February 2019) \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n
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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine).<\/p>\n
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\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v.\u00a0Serbia (dec.), no.\u00a018369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 April 2019.<\/p>\n
Liv Tigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Georges Ravarani
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
APPENDIX<\/p>\n
Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\n| Application no. | \nDate of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n | Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n (in euros)[i]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 23\/05\/2006<\/td>\n Deji-Bro\u0219teanu<\/strong><\/p>\n 04\/01\/1937<\/td>\n [i]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n |