FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ZLATIN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Application no. 24693/07 and 5 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29 March 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zlatin and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 March 2018,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which in relevant parts read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “trial” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
8. In the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. The Court further notes that the judgments in the present applications ordered specific actions to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the judgments in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the judgments in the applicants’ favour.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
III. REMAINING COMPLAINT
12. In application no. 18456/11 the applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 17 October 2006 of the Bucharest County Court, ordering the authorities to recalculate the applicant’s pension.
13. The Court notes that the judgment in question was enforced within 4 months and 25 days. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court finds that the latter acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcement. The Court therefore finds that the complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, § 10, 1 December 2016).
14. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and to dismiss the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. In applications nos. 34883/10 and 5753/12, the Court makes no awards since the applicants either failed to submit claims for just satisfaction in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court or did not submit any claims at all.
17. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
18. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments, as indicated in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of application no. 18456/11 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments, as indicated in the appended table;
4. Holds that the respondent State is to ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic judgments referred to in the appended table;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 March 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
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 decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic judgments
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
24693/07
13/12/2006
Nicolae Zlatin
11/12/1926
Constanța District Court, 11/12/2000
11/12/2000
pending
More than 17 years and 1 month and 16 days
Orders a state-owned company to award the applicant 12,500 kilograms of wheat or to pay him the equivalent
3,600
34883/10
10/05/2010
Andrei Tomiuc
08/11/1941,
represented by Aurel Glăvan, a lawyer practising in Constanța
Constanța District Court, 29/06/2000
03/05/2005
pending
More than 12 years and 8 months and 24 days
Financial order
0
18456/11
15/03/2011
Florea Spînu
04/06/1948
Bucharest County Court, 17/10/2006
Bucharest County Court, 13/07/2009
08/03/2007
13/07/2009
02/08/2007
4 months and 26 days
06/06/2012
2 years and 10 months and 25 days
Orders the authorities to recalculate the applicant’s pension
Financial order
1,515
5753/12
11/01/2012
Ştefan Mardale
02/09/1940
Dolj District Court, 03/11/2010
04/03/2011
06/04/2012
1 year and 1 month and 3 days
Orders the authorities to recalculate the applicant’s pension
0
20569/12
17/03/2012
Nina Giurgiu
Born: 23/11/1924;
deceased: 11/09/2014;
Proceedings pursued by her heirs, Sorin-Horia Ioja, born on 03/03/1968, and Alexandrina Ioja, born on 29/04/1970,
represented by Sorin Horia Ioja, a lawyer practising in Timișoara
Timișoara District Court, 29/04/2004
Timișoara District Court, 29/04/2004
08/10/2004
08/10/2004
18/10/2013
9 years and 11 days
15/02/2012
7 years and 4 months and 8 days
Orders the Romanian National Bank to restore the applicant’s possession over confiscated goods or to pay her the equivalent value.
Financial order
4,350
47967/13
17/07/2013
Ion Iordan
24/01/1949
Dâmboviţa County Court, 07/12/2009
Dâmbovița County Court, 15/03/2010
11/03/2010
26/05/2010
pending
More than 7 years and 10 months and 16 days
pending
More than 7 years and 8 months and 1 day
Financial order
Financial order
4,680
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy