FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 69123/14 and 3774/15
Gelu DRAGOMIR against Romania
and George Alexandru POPESCU against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 September 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, 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
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour.
In particular, the Court notes that in application no. 69123/14 the final judgment of 15 September 2011 of the Galați County Court ordered the applicant’s employer to communicate to him a decision and to pay him salary rights according to that decision. It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the decision in question had in fact been communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2011, even before the aforementioned judgment was issued. In addition, the salary rights have been paid to the applicant without any delay, on a monthly basis, from the moment of the adoption of the above-mentioned decision. In view of the above, the Court concludes that there was in fact no excessive enforcement period and, consequently, there is no arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, §§ 9-10, 1 December 2016).
As regards application no. 3774/15, the Court firstly notes that in view of the legal statute of the debtor, the National Institute for Research and Development for Oil Equipment Ploiești, more specifically the extensive prerogatives given by its statute, the nature of its activities and its high degree of institutional and operational independence from the political authorities, it shall be considered a private debtor for the purposes of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Samsonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 2880/10, § 74, 16 September 2014). Moreover, while it should be noted that the judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced, this was on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtor, a private party, does not have any assets (see Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).
In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 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 17 October 2019.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
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’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Domestic order
69123/14
10/10/2014
Gelu Dragomir
29/03/1970
Galați County Court, 15/09/2011
15/09/2011
18/05/2011
None
To communicate to the applicant a decision and to pay salary rights in accordance with that decision
3774/15
09/01/2015
George Alexandru Popescu
11/11/1950
Prahova County Court, 27/03/2012
27/03/2012
pending
More than 6 years and 6 months and 29 days
To pay to the applicant salary rights
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy