THIRD SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Applications nos. 62318\/16 and 34414\/17
\nCosmin Florian CERNEA against the Netherlands
\nand Nicolae VOICU against the Netherlands<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25\u00a0September 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Dmitry Dedov, President,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nJolien Schukking, judges,
\nand Fato\u015f Arac\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 25 October 2016 and 3 May 2017 respectively,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 May 2018 as adjusted on 9 July 2018 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in the first case, Mr Cosmin Florian Cernea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1978 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, staying in the Netherlands.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in the second case, Mr NicolaeVoicu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1970 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, staying in the Netherlands.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Both applicants were represented before the Court by Mr Th.O.M. Dieben, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Dutch Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Koopman, and their Deputy Agent, Ms K. Adhin, both from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their detention in the Netherlands for the purpose of their surrender to Romania beyond 90 days was in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applications had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained about their detention for the purpose of their surrender to Romania in excess of 90 days, i.e. 3 days in the case of Mr\u00a0Cernea, and 119 days in the case of Mr Voicu. The applicants relied on Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7 May 2018 the Government informed the Court in each of the two cases that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration 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\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration submitted in respect of the applicant Mr Cernea, provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Government\u2019s attempts to reach a friendly settlement with the applicant have not been successful. In view hereof, the Government, by means of a unilateral declaration, acknowledges that the prolongation of the applicant\u2019s detention for the purpose of his surrender to Romania beyond 90 days amounted to a violation of article\u00a05, paragraph 1, of the Convention.<\/p>\n The Government regrets this course of events and is willing to offer the applicant just satisfaction to the amount of \u20ac 216,00 (based on the period beyond 90 days) and reimbursement of the costs for legal assistance made in relation to both the domestic proceedings and the proceedings before the Court provided they are specified, reasonable and necessarily incurred and in line with domestic tariffs as laid down in the BesluitVergoedingenRechtsbijstand[Legal Aid Payments Decree]. In case the applicant was provided with legal aid in the proceedings, the Government will reimburse the applicant\u2019s contribution to the provided legal aid.\u201d<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration submitted in respect of the applicant Mr Voicu was phrased in identical terms. In his case, the Government offered 8,570 euros (EUR) for the period of detention beyond 90 days, and in addition reimbursement of legal costs incurred.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0By letter of 8 June 2018, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount offered by the Government was lower than the amount for compensation for unlawful detention under the applicable domestic guidelines, i.e. EUR 80 per day, and pointed out that this standard amount had been accepted by the Court as appropriate in, for instance, Geisterfer\u00a0v.\u00a0the\u00a0Netherlands, (no. 15911\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 46-48, 9 December 2014). Furthermore, arguing that detention abroad is more difficult for a detainee in his or her home country, they considered that an appropriate amount for compensation for immaterial damages would be at least EUR 100 per day. For costs and expenses Mr Cernea claimed EUR 11.50 and Mr Voicu EUR\u00a011.95.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 July 2018 the Government informed the Court that they wished to adjust their unilateral declarations of 7 May 2018 in the sense that the just satisfaction amounts would be brought in compliance with the domestic guidelines. In the case of Mr Cernea, the Government increased the amount to EUR 255 plus EUR 11.50 for costs and expenses and, in the case of Mr\u00a0Voicu, to EUR 10,115 plus EUR 11.95 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 July 2018 the applicants informed the Court that they had noted that the Government were now offering compensation based on a daily amount of EUR 85. Referring to the reasons given in their letter of 8\u00a0June 2018, they maintained that in their circumstances an amount of EUR\u00a0100 per day would appropriate. They left it to the Court\u2019s discretion whether this difference justified a continuation of the Court\u2019s examination of their cases.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article\u00a037 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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201cfor any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications\u201d.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (TahsinAcar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602\/02, 26\u00a0June\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the Netherlands, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5\u00a7 1 (see, for example, Brand v. the Netherlands, no.\u00a049902\/99, 11 May 2004;Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865\/99, 11\u00a0May 2004; Nelissen v. the Netherlands, no. 6051\/07, 5 April 2011; and Geisterfer, cited above,\u00a7\u00a7 46-48.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s respective declarations, as well as the amounts of compensation proposed \u2013 which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, 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 applications (Article 37 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declarations under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 18 October 2018.<\/p>\n Fato\u015f Arac\u0131\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dmitry Dedov
\nDeputy 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n