FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11443/09
Ion POPESCU against Romania
and 8 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 April 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, 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 and the relevant details of the applications are 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 were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
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)
1. Preliminary objections
4. As regards application no. 77538/13, the Court notes, as also submitted by the Government, that the judgment of 7 June 2010 was issued in favour of a third party, and not the applicant company. The applicant company did not bring any arguments capable of disproving this finding.
5. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant company cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of its rights under the Convention, for the purposes of Article 34 (see Dimitrescu v. Romania, nos. 5629/03 and 3028/04, § 34, 3 June 2008).
6. It follows that this application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
7. As concerns the remaining applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government because these applications are in any event inadmissible for the reasons presented below.
2. Remaining applications
8. Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour.
9. In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 11443/09, 69010/13 and 9315/14, the applicants have lost their victim status since the judgments have been duly enforced and within a reasonable time (see, among many other authorities, Kravtsov v. Russia, no. 39272/04, § 24, 5 April 2011).
10. In applications nos. 38783/13, 77310/13 and 53515/14, having regard to the particular context of the cases, namely the amounts to be paid and the domestic authorities’ assessment as to the impact of an immediate payment of the total amount, the Court considers that the measures taken by the national authorities to pay the amounts due in several instalments struck a fair balance between the applicants’ rights to see the judgments enforced within a reasonable time and the public interest at stake (see Dumitru and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 57265/08, §§ 45-52, 4 September 2012).
11. In application no. 58870/13, the Court notes that the document to which the public authority was ordered to give access did not exist and consequently there was an objective impossibility to enforce the judgment (see Ciobanu and Others v. Romania, (dec.), nos. 898/06, 39374/07, 1161/08 and 36461/08, § 27, 6 September 2011).
12. In application no. 46310/14, the Court observes that the applicant was invited to submit the original title deed but failed to do so. Therefore, the Court finds 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).
13. 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 3 May 2018.
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 judgment)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth/Date of registration
Relevant domestic judgment
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
11443/09
13/01/2009
Ion Popescu
07/03/1929
Bucharest County Court,
22/01/2008
02/04/2008
01/12/2008
8 months
38783/13
10/06/2013
Maria Papaianopol
25/11/1948
represented by Bogdan Adrian Papaianopol, a lawyer practising in Bâșcov
Argeș County Court,
20/09/2010
Argeș County Court,
10/01/2011
29/11/2010
31/03/2011
pending
More than 7 years and 2 months and 17 days
pending
More than 6 years and 10 months and 15 days
58870/13
05/09/2013
Maria Marchidann
01/09/1943
Bucharest County Court,
15/10/2008
26/01/2009
pending
More than 9 years and 20 days
69010/13
02/10/2013
Aurelia Mara Mihăiesc
30/10/1969
Alba County Court,
23/11/2011
10/04/2012
05/10/2012
5 months and 26 days
77310/13
11/11/2013
Nadia Florentina Racz
18/08/1960
Oradea Court of Appeal, 21/04/2010
14/01/2011
24/12/2013
2 years and 11 months and 11 days
77538/13
04/12/2013
S.C. Conspad Serv S.R.L.
Vaslui County Court,
07/06/2010
15/11/2010
pending
More than 7 years and 3 months and 2 days
9315/14
16/12/2013
Grigore Tomescu
29/03/1954
represented by Codruța Tomescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest
Bucharest Court of Appeal, 24/11/2011
24/11/2011
28/09/2012
10 months and 5 days
46310/14
16/06/2014
Pavel Drumuș
11/02/1932
represented by Rodica Iacob, a lawyer practising in Constanța
Constanța District Court,
16/09/2008
16/09/2008
pending
More than 9 years and 5 months and 1 days
53515/14
17/07/2014
Alexandru Bleoancă
02/06/1979
Bacău Court of Appeal, 29/10/2008
03/08/2009
pending
More than 8 years and 6 months and 12 days
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy