FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
Application no.80543\/12
\nDumitru CODREAN
\nagainst Romania<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29\u00a0January 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
\nEgidijusK\u016bris,
\nIulia AntoanellaMotoc, judges,
\nand Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2012,<\/p>\n
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\u2019s reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0After 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\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration provided as follows [original French]:<\/p>\n
\u201cLe Gouvernement d\u00e9clare \u2013 au moyen de la pr\u00e9sente d\u00e9claration unilat\u00e9rale – qu\u2019il reconnait l\u2019existence d\u2019une violation de l\u2019article 6 \u00a7 1 de la Convention qui d\u00e9coule du d\u00e9faut d\u2019\u00e9quit\u00e9 de la proc\u00e9dure p\u00e9nale.<\/p>\n
Le Gouvernement d\u00e9clare \u00eatre pr\u00eat \u00e0 verser au requ\u00e9rant au titre de satisfaction \u00e9quitable la somme totale de 2.700 EUR, montant qu\u2019il consid\u00e8re comme raisonnable au vu de la jurisprudence de la Cour. Cette somme, qui couvrira tout pr\u00e9judice mat\u00e9riel et moral ainsi que les frais et d\u00e9pens, ne sera soumise \u00e0 aucun imp\u00f4t. Elle sera vers\u00e9e en lei roumains au taux applicable \u00e0 la date du paiement sur le compte bancaire indiqu\u00e9 par la partie requ\u00e9rante, dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la d\u00e9cision de la Cour rendue conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 l\u2019article 37 \u00a7 1 de la Convention europ\u00e9enne des droits de l\u2019Homme. \u00c0 d\u00e9faut de r\u00e8glement dans ledit d\u00e9lai, le Gouvernement s\u2019engage \u00e0 verser, \u00e0 compter de l\u2019expiration de celui-ci et jusqu\u2019au r\u00e8glement effectif de la somme en question, un int\u00e9r\u00eat simple \u00e0 un taux \u00e9gal \u00e0 celui de la facilite de pr\u00eat marginal de la Banque centrale europ\u00e9enne, augment\u00e9 de trois points de pourcentage.<\/p>\n
Le Gouvernement invite respectueusement la Cour \u00e0 dire que la poursuite de l\u2019examen de la requ\u00eate n\u2019est plus justifi\u00e9e et \u00e0 la rayer du r\u00f4le en vertu de l\u2019article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) de la Convention.\u201d<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0By 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\u2019s judgment finding a violation of Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention. Moreover, he was not satisfied with the amount of compensation proposed by the Government.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 23 March 2016 the applicant\u2019s lawyer informed the Court about the applicant\u2019s death and his wife\u2019s intention to pursue the application (see paragraph 1 above).<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0The Government have not disputed that the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s widow to pursue the application on behalf of her late husband.<\/p>\n
11.\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 application\u201d.<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(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.<\/p>\n
13.\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 (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v.\u00a0Poland (dec.), no. 11602\/02, 26\u00a0June\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v.\u00a0Poland (dec.), no. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 \u00a7 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, G\u0103it\u0103naru v. Romania, no.\u00a026082\/05, 26\u00a0June 2012).<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0As the applicant died after he had lodged his application (see paragraph\u00a09 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).<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of 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 Hanu v.\u00a0Romania, no. 10890\/04, \u00a7 49, 4 June 2013; and Moinescu v.\u00a0Romania, no.\u00a016903\/12, \u00a7 47, 15 September 2015) \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 (c)).<\/p>\n
17.\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 application (Article\u00a037 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, 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\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0In 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 under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of the modalities 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\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 February 2019.<\/p>\n
Andrea Tamietti\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 Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
\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