THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 898/06, 39374/07, 1161/08 and 36461/08
by Filofteia CIOBANU and Others
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 24 April 1997, 3 September and 26 December 2007 and 24 July 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The details of the applicants and a summary of the facts of the cases as submitted by the parties are indicated below.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The French Government, who were invited to submit written observations in application no. 1161/08, chose not to exercise that right (Article 36 § 1).
A. The circumstances of the cases
1. Application no. 898/06
3. The applicants, Ms Filofteia Ciobanu, Ms Maria Ciobanu and Ms Steliana Ciobanu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1958, 1919 and 1956 and reside in Braşov and Predeal respectively.
4. On 27 July 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal allowed the complaint submitted by the first applicant against her employer on 6 April 1994 and ordered her reinstatement in the position she previously held together with the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 6 March 2001 the High Court of Justice upheld this judgment by a final decision.
5. On 7 November and 2 December 2002 the employer sent to the first applicant two letters inviting her to its headquarters with a copy of the enforceable judgment and a formal request for reinstatement in order to start the administrative formalities required for the enforcement. The applicant refused to comply without offering any particular reason.
6. On 1 March 2004 the first applicant requested the courts to oblige her former employer to pay damages for the delay in the enforcement of the 27 July 2000 judgment. On 1 June 2004 the Braşov Court of Appeal rejected the action deciding that no guilt could be held on the employer’s side since the applicant refused to present herself to her employer’s headquarters and fulfil the formalities required by law. On 21 June 2005 the High Court of Justice upheld this judgment by a final decision.
2. Application no. 39374/07
7. The applicant, Mr Traian Ciulică, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Săftica, Romania. He is represented before the Court by Mr Cristian Igreţ, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
8. On 12 April 1990 the applicant signed with his employer, a state institution subordinated to the Ilfov County Council, a rent contract for an apartment until the termination of his employment.
9. In 1997 the apartment was transferred in the administration of another state institution which needed the space for a different purpose and thus sent an eviction notification to the applicant.
10. Refusing to vacate the premises, in 2005 the applicant requested before the courts the renewal of his rent contract. On 22 April 2005 the Buftea District Court obliged the Ilfov County Council to renew the applicant’s rent contract. On 23 November 2006 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment by a final decision.
11. By a decision of 19 June 2007 the Ilfov County Council approved the renewal of the applicant’s rent contract for a period of six months. However, although he had been invited on several occasions, the applicant did not present himself for signing the contract.
3. Application no. 1161/08
12. The applicant, Mr René Mérite, is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Gevrey-Chambertin, France. He lodged the application in respect to the domestic court proceedings mentioned below in which his commercial company acted as a plaintiff.
13. On 16 November 2004 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the civil action submitted by the applicant’s company and obliged the Ministry of European Integration to admit that the project submitted by the applicant’s company within the framework of the PHARE 2001 programme met the eligibility criteria. On 23 May 2006 the High Court of Justice upheld this judgment by a final decision.
14. Despite the applicant’s efforts, the judgment of 16 November 2004 remained non-enforced to date.
4. Application no. 36461/08
15. The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Cristescu, was a Romanian national who was born on 8 July 1931. On 20 January 2010 the Court was informed that the applicant had died in the course of 2009 and that his daughter, Mihaela Despina Raceanu wanted to pursue the application as his legal heir.
16. On 28 May 2007 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s action and obliged the Bucharest Department for Dialogue, Family and Social Solidarity to issue a decision recognising the applicant’s rights under Article 7 letter b of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 214/1999 (which provides for certain social security rights in the benefit of persons who were persecuted by the communist regime). The defendant was also obliged to pay the applicant 60,000,000 Romanian lei as damages. On 12 November 2007 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment by a final decision.
17. According to the payment order submitted by the parties, on 6 October 2008 the applicant received the damages, indexed according to the inflation rate at the date of the payment.
18. The judgment of 28 May 2007 was entirely enforced on 8 October 2008 when the Bucharest Department for Dialogue, Family and Social Solidarity issued the required decision.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
19. The relevant domestic law concerning the execution of final judgments, namely excerpts of the Civil Procedure Code and Law no. 188/2000 on the powers and functions of bailiffs, is summed up in the Court’s judgment in the case of Topciov v. Romania ((dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).
COMPLAINTS
20. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or the excessive delays in the enforcement of the final judgments given in their favour, which infringed their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
21. The applicants in applications nos. 898/06 and 1161/08 also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings finalised with the judgments of 6 March 2001 and 23 May 2006 of the High Court of Justice as well as of being discriminated against in the course of these proceedings. They invoked Article 6 § 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.
22. The applicants in application no. 898/06 further complained that, due to the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 July 2000, they were subjected to torture and their right to private and family life was violated in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning non-enforcement
23. The applicants alleged that the judgments issued in their favour have not been enforced or have been enforced with an excessive delay. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which, in so far as relevant, 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.”
24. The Government rejected the allegations and submitted that as regards applications nos. 898/06 and 39374/07 there was an objective impossibility to enforce the judgments in the applicants’ favour due to the applicants’ conduct. Concerning application no. 1161/08 the Government recalled that the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered in 2004 to declare eligible the project submitted by the applicant’s company but within a PHARE programme which was only operational in the course of 2001 and was completed at the end of that year. Accordingly, there was an objective impossibility to enforce the judgment three years after the termination of the said programme. As regards application no. 36461/08 the Government submitted that the judgment had been duly enforced.
25. With respect to application no. 898/06 the Court firstly notes that the second and third applicants were not parties to the domestic proceedings and therefore cannot claim to be victims in accordance with Article 34 of the Convention. Further on, with respect to the first applicant the Court notes that she was invited by her employer to fulfil the formalities required by law for the enforcement of the judgment in her favour but refused to do so. Moreover, the domestic courts have already decided by the final judgment of 21 June 2005 that it was the first applicant’s conduct which led to the impossibility to enforce the judgment under dispute. In the light of all the material before it, the Court sees no reason to depart from these findings of the domestic court in the present case.
26. As regards application no. 39374/07, the Court notes that the applicant was invited to sign a renewal of his rent contract as ordered by the judgment of 22 April 2005 but refused to do so. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Government’s submission and notes that it was the applicant’s conduct which led to an objective impossibility of enforcing the judgment in his favour (see Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, no. 32141/04, § 27, 8 November 2007, and Bartoş v. Romania, no. 16287/03, § 30, 26 January 2010).
27. As regards application no. 1161/08, the Court agrees with the Government’s submission and notes the existence of an objective impossibility of enforcing the judgment of 16 November 2004.
28. As regards application no. 36461/08 the Court notes that it is not necessary to decide whether the applicant’s legal heir has locus standi to pursue the application since in any case the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced within a reasonable delay of eleven months.
29. In view of the above, it follows that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Other complaints raised by the applicants in applications nos. 898/06 and 1161/08
30. Referring to Articles 6 § 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention as well as to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention and also to Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants further complained of other aspects related to the proceedings finalised with the judgments of 6 March 2001 and 23 May 2006 of the High Court of Justice, respectively.
31. However, having carefully considered the applicants’ submissions in the light of all material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
32. Therefore, it follows that these parts of the applications nos. 898/06 and 1161/08 are also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJan Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy