FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36605/03
Ilie IANCU and Ioana IANCU against Romania
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 September 2017 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
2. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 33860/06, 24053/07 and 39724/07, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Joinder of the applications
3. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
B. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments)
4. In the present applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints are inadmissible in any event, as presented below.
5. Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour.
6. In particular, the Court notes that the applicants failed to make appropriate use of the available domestic legal avenues and to comply with all the procedural and substantial requirements of the domestic law, namely instituting enforcement proceedings, in the following applications: application no. 10672/06, as far as it concerns the enforcement of the judgment of 9 November 2000; application no. 28157/04, as far as it concerns the obligation to have the applicant reappointed to his former job; and applications nos. 36605/03, 38236/03 and 39724/07 in their entirety (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).
7. As regards applications nos. 26025/07 and 10672/06, the latter as far as it concerns the enforcement of the judgment of 3 March 2005, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgments. The Court notes however that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtors, private parties, did not have any assets (see Tanasenko v. Moldova (dec.), no. 77608/01, 28 February 2006).
8. As regards application no. 28157/04, in respect of the obligation to pay to the applicant retroactive salaries, as well as applications nos. 15084/06, 24053/07, 33860/06 and 40065/07, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgments. The Court notes however that the judgments in question were enforced with delays ranging from 9 days to 11 years and 10 months. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings and the conduct of the applicants and of the authorities, which have acted promptly and with diligence, the Court finds that the complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ion Popescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 4206/11, §§ 41-44, 17 March 2015, and Turturică and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 18805/10 and 2 others, 16 June 2016).
9. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Other alleged violations under well-established case-law
10. In application no. 39724/07, the applicants complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of their complaint of non‑enforcement.
11. The Court notes that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
12. The Court has found that the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention is manifestly ill-founded. It follows that the applicants do not have an arguable claim and Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case.
13. Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
D. Remaining complaints
14. In applications nos. 33860/06 and 24053/07, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
15. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
16. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 October 2017.
Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings
Other complaints under well-established case-law
36605/03
01/10/2003
Ilie Iancu
07/04/1932
Ioana Iancu
18/03/2009
Drăgășani District Court,
05/04/1994
13/12/1994
pending
More than 22 years and 7 months and 15 days
38236/03
21/10/2003
Ilie Nicolaescu
01/04/1932
Maria Moșteanu
Born: 09/09/1927; deceased: 24/04/2010;
Proceedings pursued by heir, Mitroiescu Simona, born on 21/04/1954.
Drăgășani District Court,
28/03/1997
01/01/1998
pending
More than 19 years and 6 months and 27 days
28157/04
04/06/2004
Neculai Baltag
04/10/1951
Fălticeni District Court, 11/11/1999
13/04/2001
10/03/2004
2 years and 10 months and 27 days
10672/06
03/03/2006
Marian Adrian State
08/07/1966
Coca Ene
Brașov County Court,
09/11/2000
Brașov County Court,
03/03/2005
09/11/2000
01/06/2005
pending
More than 16 years and 8 months and 19 days
pending
More than 12 years and 1 months and 27 days
15084/06
04/04/2006
Ion Radu
06/03/1946
Rm. Vâlcea District Court,
31/10/2002
06/05/2003
31/10/2005
2 years and 5 months and 26 days
33860/06
04/08/2006
Nelu Şerban
12/02/1952
Teleorman County Court,
01/04/2005
03/06/2005
31/10/2005
4 months and 29 days
24053/07
29/05/2007
Virginia Voinic
23/08/1941
Calafat District Court,
09/02/1999
Calafat District Court,
09/02/1999
16/03/1999
16/03/1999
09/11/2010
11 years and 7 months and 25 days
15/12/2010
11 years and 9 months
26025/07
14/06/2007
Mariana Victoria Tănăsescu
29/05/1935
Bucharest District 5 Court,
21/11/2005
08/03/2006
pending
More than 11 years and 4 months and 20 days
39724/07
06/09/2007
Doina Pământ
01/01/1948
Reta Popescu
09/01/1955
Oradea District Court,
21/12/2005
03/04/2007
pending
More than 10 years and 3 months and 25 days
Art. 13 - Lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
40065/07
05/09/2007
Magdalena Teișanu
07/04/1954
Suceava County Court,
19/12/2007
07/10/2008
pending
More than 8 years and 9 months and 21 days
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy