FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17024/06
Gheorghe PITĂROIU against Romania
and 10 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 October 2017 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, as well as the complaint in application no. 49532/08 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 19299/08, 41068/08 and 49532/08, the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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 explained below.
5. 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 outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour.
6. In particular, the Court notes that the applicants failed to make appropriate use of the available domestic legal avenues and to comply with all the procedural and substantial requirements of the domestic law, as follows: not using the available legal avenues to enforce the judgment, namely to demolish the debtors constructions at their expense (applications nos. 17024/06 and 53316/08); not acting diligently so as to prevent the enforcement proceedings from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 22928/08, with regard to the first set of enforcement proceedings, and 48082/08; see Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006); not pursuing the enforcement proceedings (applications nos. 41068/08 and 54610/08); not filing a request to register on the list of creditors (application no. 49532/08); failing to cooperate with the bailiff, namely refusing to accompany him to meetings with the purpose of enforcing the judgment (application no. 48097/08, in respect of the obligation to grant possession; see Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, no. 32141/04, § 27, 8 November 2007, and Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).
7. As regards application no. 19299/08, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgment. The Court notes however that the judgment in his favour remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtors, private parties, did not have any assets (see Topciov, cited above).
8. As regards application no. 22928/08, in respect of the second set of enforcement proceedings, application no. 48097/08, in respect of the pecuniary obligation, as well as applications nos. 42418/07 and 49217/07, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgments. The Court notes however that the judgments in question were enforced with delays ranging from 5 months to 9 years and 7 months. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings and the conduct of the applicants and of the authorities, which have acted promptly and with diligence, the Court finds that the complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ion Popescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 4206/11, §§ 41-44, 17 March 2015, and Turturică and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 18805/10 and 2 others, 16 June 2016).
9. 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)
10. In application no. 49532/08, the applicants 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 14 November 1996, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
11. The Court observes that the period under consideration, namely from 20 June 1994 until 14 November 1996, amounted to a total of 2 years, 4 months and 26 days for three levels of jurisdiction which cannot be considered excessive.
12. It follows that this part of the application no. 49532/08 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
D. Remaining complaints
13. In applications nos. 19299/08, 41068/08 and 49532/08, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
14. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
15. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 9 November 2017.
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 judgments)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth/
Date of registration
Representative name and location
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
17024/06
19/04/2006
Gheorghe Pităroiu
27/06/1956
Zătreanu Ion
Craiova
Craiova District Court,
09/11/1993
04/06/1998
pending
More than 19 years and 3 months and 5 days
42418/07
24/09/2007
Gheorghe Marin
28/03/1943
Brașov Court of Appeal,
03/12/2004
03/12/2004
10/07/2007
2 years and 7 months and 8 days
49217/07
06/11/2007
Maria Badea
05/10/1955
Argeș County Court,
07/07/2005
07/07/2005
08/12/2005
5 months and 2 days
19299/08
16/04/2008
Petrică-Corneliu Vladu
22/10/1955
Cristian Dumitroiu
02/08/1955
Cimpoeru Dan
Bucarest
Alba County Court,
16/11/2001
16/11/2001
pending
More than 15 years and 9 months and 20 days
22928/08
09/05/2008
Costică Zaharia
26/08/1942
Galați District Court,
02/09/1992
Galați District Court,
20/05/2002
02/09/1992
27/08/2003
pending
More than 25 years and 11 days
09/04/2013
9 years and 7 months and 14 days
41068/08
18/08/2008
Cristian Constantin Corbu
03/07/1968
Clara Denise Tahbaz
27/07/1969
Bucharest Court of Appeal,
19/11/2004
Bucharest Court of Appeal,
18/02/2008
19/11/2004
18/02/2008
06/05/2008
3 years and 5 months and 18 days
pending
More than 9 years and 6 months and 18 days
48082/08
29/09/2008
Constantin Popovici
20/09/1948
Roman District Court,
14/12/2004
14/12/2004
pending
More than 12 years and 8 months and 22 days
48097/08
23/09/2008
Aurora Iacob
Born: 13/12/1926;
deceased: 20/03/2013; Proceedings pursued by heir, Niculina Baciu, born on 06/04/1950.
Iași County Court,
23/06/2003
Iași County Court,
23/06/2003
23/06/2003
23/06/2003
01/02/2006
2 years and 7 months and 10 days
pending
More than 14 years and 2 months and 13 days
49532/08
07/10/2008
S.A. Somi Urișor
Dej District Court,
14/06/1995
14/11/1996
pending
More than 20 years and 9 months and 22 days
Art. 6 § 1 -
excessive length
of civil
proceedings
53316/08
28/10/2008
Marin Cesar
09/03/1926
Bucharest District 1 Court,
20/12/2002
01/07/2005
pending
More than 12 years and 2 months and 4 days
54610/08
29/10/2008
Aurelia Barbu
01/03/1960
Bucharest District 6 Court,
30/03/2007
Bucharest District 6 Court,
30/03/2007
30/03/2007
30/03/2007
28/12/2015
8 years and 8 months and 29 days
24/04/2008
1 year and 26 days
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy