FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 74952/14
Dan Mihail NISIPEANU against Romania
and 4 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 October 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 is 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. 63235/16 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 30279/15 the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 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 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.
6. In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 74952/14, 75569/14, 30279/15 and 63613/16 the judgments in question were enforced within periods not exceeding 6 months and 8 days. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicants as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that the periods in question are 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).
7. As regards application no. 63235/16 the Court observes that the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely she failed to submit a request accompanied by relevant documents, as required by the domestic legislation in her case (see Li v. Russia, no. 38388/07, §§ 14-21, 24 April 2014).
8. 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. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (length of the civil proceedings)
9. In application no. 63235/16 the applicant also complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the civil proceedings finalised by the judgment of 15 April 2016 was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
10. The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicant had not pursued an action for tortious liability.
11. Having regard to the Court’s findings in the case of Brudan v. Romania (no. 75717/14, §§ 86-89, 10 April 2018), the applicant in the current case is required to avail herself of the domestic remedy by pursuing the proceedings provided by Article 1349 of the Civil Code in force since 1 October 2011 (Articles 998-999 of the former Civil Code).
12. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
D. Remaining complaint
13. In application no. 30279/15, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings, which was not communicated to the Government.
14. Like under the previous heading (paragraphs 9-12 above), and having regard to the Court’s findings in the case of Brudan v. Romania (cited above, §§ 86-89), the applicants in the current case are also required to avail themselves of the domestic remedy by pursuing the proceedings provided by Article 1349 of the Civil Code in force since 1 October 2011 (Articles 998-999 of the former Civil Code).
15. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 November 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
74952/14
22/11/2014
Dan Mihail Nisipeanu
22/05/1961
represented by Simona Bunghez, a lawyer practising in Brașov
Brașov County Court, 03/12/2013
26/05/2014
08/07/2014
1 month and 13 days
75569/14
22/11/2014
Nicolae Parate
27/01/1965
represented by Simona Bunghez, a lawyer practising in Brașov
Brașov County Court, 03/12/2013
26/05/2014
08/07/2014
1 month and 13 days
30279/15
15/06/2015
(3 applicants)
Eugenia Pleşa
22/10/1949
Dana Gabriela Pleșa
18/09/1977
Cristina Adriana Pleșa
30/03/1980
represented by Anelis-Vanina Istrătescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest
Bucharest District Court, 28/05/2014
27/01/2015
04/06/2015
4 months and 6 days
63235/16
12/10/2016
Niculina Lovin
21/09/1957
represented by Lorena-Elena Stănescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest
Bucharest County Court, 15/04/2016
15/04/2016
pending
More than 2 years and 3 months and 3 days
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings, from 06/04/2009 until 15/04/2016, a total of 7 years and 11 days for 2 levels of jurisdiction
63613/16
24/10/2016
Gheorghe Radu
14/02/1966
represented by Marius-Cătălin Preduţ,
a lawyer practising in
Bucharest
Bucharest Court of Appeal, 07/06/2016
07/06/2016
14/12/2016
6 months and 8 days
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy