European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petrica ANTON v Romania - 11862/05 [2011] ECHR 1137 (28 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1137.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1137

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11862/05
by Petrică ANTON
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 February 2005,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 September 2010 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:

THE FACTS

The application was lodged by Mr Petrică Anton, a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The case mainly concerned the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant for forgery. The proceedings started on 29 July 1996 when the applicant was arrested on suspicion of illegal registering of a vehicle. On 14 September 1996 he was released from pre-trial detention. The criminal proceedings against the applicant ended on 25 May 2005 when the Slobozia branch of the National Anti-Corruption Public Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation. Thus, the proceedings have lasted for eight years and nine months before the prosecutor’s office.

On 7 February 2003, the applicant lodged civil proceeding for damages alleging that he had been detained illegally from 29 July 1996 to 14 September 1996. By an interlocutory judgement of 7 February 2007 the Bucharest Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings as neither of the parties was present and no justification for absence was presented. On 4 March 2008, the Bucharest Court of Appeal resumed ex officio the proceedings in view of rendering a judgement of discontinuance as neither party made any procedural act for more than one year. By a judgement of 30 April 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and outcome of the criminal proceedings.

He further complained under Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 of the Convention about his alleged illegal arrest and about not having been brought promptly before a judge. He also complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he did not receive compensation following his alleged illegal arrest.

Finally, he complained under Article 6 § 2 about the breach of the right to be presumed innocent, under Article 13 about the lack of an effective remedy and under Article 17 about an abusive exercise of rights by the State.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This provision provides as follows:

“In the determination of ...any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

By letter dated 15 September 2010, 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.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government declares– by a way of this unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement of the excessive length of the domestic proceedings to which the applicant was a party. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant as just satisfaction the sum of EUR 3,000, amount which it considers reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law. This sum is to cover all damage as well as the costs and expenses and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum will be payable in Romanian lei at the rate applicable at the date of payment to personal accounts of the applicant within three months from the date of the notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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. Therefore, the Government respectfully invites the Court rule that the examination of the present application is no longer justified and to strike the application out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention”

In a letter of 9 January 2011, the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.

The Court recalls 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”.

It also recalls 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.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; and Abramiuc v. Romania, no. 37411/02, §§ 103-109, 24 February 2009).

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 – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this complaint (Article 37 § 1(c)).

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 this complaint (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Accordingly, this part of the application should be struck out of the list.

Referring to Article 5 §§ 1, 3, 4, 5, Article 6 § 2, Article 13 and Article 17 of the Convention, the applicant complained of further aspects related to the criminal proceedings. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within its competence, the Court finds that there is no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in these provisions in that respect. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the length of proceedings and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Egbert Myjer
Deputy Registrar President