FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 69442/14
Ion CÂRSTEA against Romania
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, 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 judgments as well as the complaint in application no. 55872/15 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
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)
1. Application no. 35234/15
4. The Government raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicant’s complaints should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae. In this connection they pointed out that the judgment of 19 December 2013 did not include any outstanding obligation in favour of the applicant.
5. The applicant did not reply to the Government’s arguments.
6. In light of all the evidence before it, and in particular noting that the judgment of 19 December 2013 did not include any obligation in favour of the applicant which had not been enforced already, the Court considers that the Government’s objection as regards the applicant’s lack of victim status must be upheld. It follows that this application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
2. Applications nos. 55872/15 and 14931/16
7. The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six-month rule. According to the Government, the time-limit had started to run from 13 October 2014 and 8 February 2011, respectively, the dates when the judgments had been fully enforced.
8. The applicants disagreed without providing any valid argument to oppose to the Government’s preliminary objection.
9. The Court reiterates that in cases involving the execution of a final court judgment a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant judgment or when an “objective impossibility” to enforce such judgment is duly acknowledged (see Sokolov and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 30859/10, § 29, 14 January 2014).
10. Turning to the above-mentioned cases, the Court observes that the six-month time-limit had started to run respectively from 13 October 2014, when the judgment of 16 September 2014 was enforced, and from 8 February 2011, when the judgment of 24 March 2010 was enforced. The Court therefore agrees with the Government and finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
3. Applications nos. 69442/14 and 47266/15
11. The Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government in the two remaining applications, because they are in any event inadmissible for the reasons presented below.
12. In respect of application no. 69442/14, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcement. The Court notes that the judgment in question was enforced within a period of thirty days. Taking into account the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that this period is not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example,
Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, §§ 9-10, 1 December 2016).
13. As regards application no. 47266/15 the Court observes that the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely he failed to submit a request for payment, as required by the domestic legislation in his case (see Li v. Russia, no. 38388/07,
§§ 14-21, 24 April 2014).
14. In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Other alleged violations under well-established case-law
15. In application no. 55872/15, the applicant also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of his non‑enforcement complaint.
16. 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, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are manifestly ill‑founded, it follows that the applicant does not have an arguable claim and that Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case.
17. Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 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 4 October 2018.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
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’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic judgment
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Other complaints under well-established case-law
69442/14
03/10/2014
Ion Cârstea
07/11/1949
Timiș County Court,
15/12/2013
12/03/2014
10/04/2014
30 days
35234/15
07/07/2015
Emilian Barbu
04/04/1969
Bucharest Court of Appeal,
19/12/2013
19/12/2013
pending
More than 4 years and 6 months and 9 days
47266/15
17/09/2015
Nicolae-Moise Mordășan
28/07/1976
Sibiu County Court,
11/04/2013
17/10/2013
pending
More than 4 years and 8 months and 10 days
55872/15
03/11/2015
Veta Păsculescu
24/10/1966
Craiova Court of Appeal, 16/09/2014
16/09/2014
13/10/2014
28 days
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions
14931/16
10/03/2016
Erszebet Ilona Csutak Nagy
15/02/1961
Cluj Court of Appeal, 24/03/2010
24/01/2011
08/02/2011
16 days
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy