FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49130/21
POLARIS M. HOLDING S.R.L.
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 November 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, President,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Valentin Nicolescu, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 49130/21) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 September 2021 by a Romanian private company, Polaris M. Holding S.R.L., registered on 27 August 1999 in Constanţa (“the applicant company”) and represented by Mrs M. Veriotti and Mr A. Itu, lawyers practising in Constanţa;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application mainly concerns the alleged non-enforcement by the Constanţa Municipality of two judgments in favour of the applicant company and a breach of the principle of legal certainty guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. On 9 May 2008 the Constanţa Municipality (“the Municipality”) and the applicant company signed a contract for waste management and public cleaning services (“the contract”). The duration of the contract was 25 years, starting with 17 June 2008.
3. By a final decision of 20 November 2012, the Iaşi County Court imposed on the Municipality the obligation, effective from 1 October 2011, to adjust the tariffs by virtue of the contract concluded in 2008 with the applicant company.
4. Given that the Municipality did not voluntarily enforce the final decision of 20 November 2012, the applicant company initiated forced execution proceedings through the bailiff’s office. This was authorised by a judge on 24 September 2014.
5. In the context of the enforcement proceedings, and at the request of the applicant company, by a final decision of 15 September 2015 of the Iaşi County Court, the Municipality was ordered, based on Article 905 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), to pay in favour of the applicant company delay penalties (penalități de pe zi de întârziere) of 1% for each day of delay, starting from the date when the decision of 20 November 2012 became final, until the Municipality complied with the obligation to adjust the prices of the services.
6. In a final decision of 21 May 2018 the Iaşi Court of Appeal established the main debt of the Municipality in favour of the applicant company at 2,750,917 Romanian lei (“RON”; approximately EUR 550,000), representing the difference between the adjusted tariffs for the period between 1 October 2011 and January 2012 and the unadjusted tariffs actually paid. The domestic court also determined and ordered the Municipality to pay the applicant company delay penalties (penalități de întârziere) for non‑enforcement of the 20 November 2012 final decision, as set in the final decision of 15 September 2015 of the Iaşi County Court, in the total amount of RON 28,857,120 (approximately EUR 6,000,000) corresponding to the period of 1 February 2013 to 15 December 2015.
7. In the framework of these proceedings, the Iaşi Court of Appeal asked the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the High Court”) for a preliminary ruling. By a decision of 22 February 2018, the High Court held that the creditor could request for delay penalties for non-enforcement within the statutory limitation period of three years, but these would be calculated for no longer than three months in which the debtor had the possibility to execute the obligation in kind. After the expiry of the three months period, it shall be considered that the obligation can no longer be expected to be executed in kind and will be executed by equivalent means, namely by paying the due sum set by the court. It also stated that the court can determine the value of the main debt to which the delay penalties will then be applied in percentage per each day of delay.
8. On 29 August 2018 the Municipality paid the applicant company the sum of RON 2,750,917 (approximately EUR 550,000), representing the adjusted tariffs, as set out in the final decision of 21 May 2018.
9. Subsequently, the applicant company requested enforcement through a bailiff of the final decision of 21 May 2018 with respect to the delay penalties. The request was authorised by a judge on 13 September 2019.
10. The Municipality lodged an objection to the enforcement proceedings. By a final decision of 12 March 2021, the Constanţa County Court allowed the objection and wrote off all the penalties, annulling the enforcement proceedings. To decide so, that court held that the Municipality had already paid, on 29 August 2018, the main debt resulting from the judicial decision of 20 November 2012, as determined by the final decision of 21 May 2018. This was considered equivalent to full enforcement of the said final decisions in the County Court’s view. In this context, the County Court referred to Article 906 (5) of the CCP which allowed the domestic court to reduce or to write off the delay penalties following an objection to the enforcement proceedings, if the debtor executed the obligation in the writ of enforcement and proved the existence of legitimate reasons justifying the delay in the enforcement. The Constanţa County Court took due note of the voluntary full payment of the main debt immediately after the Municipality became aware of the amount to pay following the notification of the final decision of 21 May 2018 delivered in August 2018. That court considered that before this date the due sums were not determined, and this represented a legitimate reason that prevented the Municipality from enforcing the judgment.
11. On 31 March 2021 the applicant company lodged a request to review the decision of 12 March 2021 of the Constanţa County Court on the ground that that decision was contrary to the final decision of 20 November 2012 of the Iaşi County Court. On 15 November 2021 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the request as unsubstantiated. It held that the two final decisions invoked did not rule on the same aspects and were thus not contradictory.
12. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant company complained that writing off the delay penalties by the final decision of 12 March 2021 amounted to a breach of the principle of legal certainty as it infringed the res judicata effect of the final decision of the Iaşi Court of Appeal of 21 May 2018. It also alleged that this equalled to the non‑enforcement of the final decisions of 20 November 2012 and 21 May 2018 rendered in its favour.
13. The applicant also complained of a lack of impartiality of the judges who delivered the final decision of 12 March 2021, claiming that they had been biased in the context of a criminal investigation against the applicant company and its shareholder for corruption offences related to the conclusion of the contract at stake with the Municipality, followed by an adverse media campaign at the local level which negatively influenced the judges’ opinion.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
14. The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of an alleged non-enforcement of final judgments given in its favour and that the final decision of 12 March 2021 breached the principle of legal certainty and that it was adopted by judges who lacked impartiality.
15. The Court recalls that the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of court judgments in Romania has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014, and Ciocodeică v. Romania, no. 27413/09, 16 January 2018).
16. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the authorities did enforce the court decision of 21 May 2018 as regards the main debt due to the applicant company, immediately after this final decision was communicated to them, even before the start of the enforcement proceedings at the request of the applicant company (see paragraphs 8-10 above).
17. Moreover, while it should be noted that the judgment in the applicant’s favour of 20 November 2012 ordering the adjustment of the tariffs was enforced with some delay, namely on 29 August 2018, this was on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto. According to the national courts, before this date the sums to be paid were not determined and therefore could not have been paid (see above paragraph 10 in fine). Furthermore, as the High Court expressly held in its decision of 22 February 2018, which was mandatory for the domestic court, after the expiry of the three months period in which the debtor had the possibility to execute the obligation in kind, it was considered that the obligation could no longer be expected to be executed in kind and would be executed by equivalent means, namely by paying the due sum set by the court (see paragraph 7 above). Therefore, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the County Court in its decision of 12 March 2021 held that the due obligation of the authorities established in the final decisions of 20 November 2012 (adjusting of the tariffs) and 21 May 2018 (payment of the calculated amount of accumulated debt) in favour of the applicant company had been fully executed by the payment of the due sum on 29 August 2018 (see paragraph 10 above). The Court sees no reason to depart from the findings of the domestic courts in this respect, which are better placed to assess the matter.
18. In the same vein, the Court notes that the final decision of 21 May 2018, establishing the total amount of the delay penalties in the applicant’s favour, enjoyed only a provisional res judicata effect. The domestic law, namely Article 906 (5) of the CCP, expressly allows the national courts to reduce or to set aside the delay penalties following an objection to the enforcement proceedings lodged by the debtor if certain conditions are met (see paragraph 10 above). In the present case, the domestic courts analysed these conditions provided by the national law and considered them met according to their reasoned decisions that do not seem tainted by arbitrariness or unfairness. Therefore, the Court concludes that there was no breach of the principle of legal certainty in this context.
19. Furthermore, the Court notes that writing off the delay penalties by the impugned final decision of 12 March 2021 of the Constanţa County Court was done at the end of adversarial proceedings in which the applicant company took part through its legal representative and was able to put forward its arguments that were duly considered by the domestic courts, who answered them in reasoned decisions that do not seem arbitrary or unreasonable in the circumstances.
20. Moreover, the applicant company did not allege that the national law did not allow it to request due compensation for eventual damages suffered because of the delayed enforcement, separately from the delay penalties established in its favour that had only a coercive role against the debtor.
21. 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.
22. The applicant also raised a complaint of lack of impartiality of the judges who rendered the final decision of 12 March 2021 of the Constanţa County Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 13 above).
23. The Court finds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicant failed to raise before the competent domestic authorities, either in form or in substance and in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements, this complaint that was made to the Court.
24. Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 November 2025.
Valentin Nicolescu Ana Maria Guerra Martins
Acting Deputy Registrar President