Orzeczenia sądów
Opublikowano: www.echr.coe.int

Decyzja
Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
z dnia 12 kwietnia 2018 r.
52911/12

UZASADNIENIE

Wstęp

ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0412DEC005291112

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 52911/12

Ionel RUSU against Romania

and 7 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 April 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,

Georges Ravarani,

Marko Bošnjak, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

Uzasadnienie faktyczne

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants' complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government ("the Government").

Uzasadnienie prawne

THE LAW

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts 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's decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government's unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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".

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (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 (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75–77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the inadequate conditions of detention (see, for example, Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania, nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25 April 2017).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government's declarations 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 the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.

Sentencja

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 3 May 2018.

Liv Tigerstedt

Vincent A. De Gaetano

Acting Deputy Registrar

President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Date of receipt of Government's declaration

Date of receipt of applicant's comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) 1

1.

52911/12

13/07/2012

Ionel Rusu

16/07/1976

Carmen Boghină

Bucarest

03/04/2015

24/07/2015

3,150

2.

77441/13

19/11/2013

03/04/2015

24/07/2015

3.

75763/14

24/11/2014

Ovidiu Marius Hada

06/08/1966

Ana Maria Roman

Braș ov

19/12/2017

05/02/2018

2,700

4.

15262/15

20/03/2015

Gyula Imre Racz

21/02/1965

Adrian Stancu

Oradea

19/12/2017

31/01/2018

2,700

5.

57909/15

11/04/2016

Radu-Marian Olescu

23/05/1986

19/12/2017

06/02/2018

4,500

6.

2021/16

21/01/2016

Nicolae Macra

02/03/1972

18/01/2018

12/02/2018

900

7.

7493/16

15/03/2016

Alin Ötvös

31/10/1982

15/01/2018

06/02/2018

2,700

8.

39469/16

30/06/2016

Cristian Alexandru Fotă

09/04/1979

Adrian Stancu

Oradea

19/12/2017

01/02/2018

2,700

1

. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.