THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no 3681/04
S.C. BLÂNDUL BEN CM S.R.L. against Romania
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 June 2015 as a committee composed of:
Luis Lopez Guerra, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Grițco, judges,
and Karen Reid, 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 and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by State authorities in their favour were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
I. JOINDER 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
The Court reiterates that the right to a tribunal protected by Article 6 would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision – creating an established right to payment or to have certain actions taken in the applicant’s favour, which should be considered as a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 65 and 87, ECHR 2009).
The Court has frequently held that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 37, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, it will first look at the time it took the authorities to execute the judgment, the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and the nature of the award (see Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, cited above, § 57).
In the present cases, after having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that for various reasons, enumerated below, the State cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour. The Court thus notes that in application no. 3681/04 the outstanding judgment cannot be enforced due to an objective impossibility (see Ciobanu and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 898/06, 39374/07, 1161/08 and 36461/08, § 27, 6 September 2011); that in applications nos. 13746/05, 12860/12 and 29260/12 the applicants have lost their victim status, in so far as the outstanding judgments had been duly enforced and within a reasonable delay (see, among many other authorities, Halilovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 21206/07, § 19, 17 January 2012); that in application no. 33998/06 the applicant has lost her victim status, in so far as the domestic courts already acknowledged the breach and awarded her satisfactory damages for the delay in enforcement of her final decision (per a contrario Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 104-107, ECHR 2006 V); that in applications nos. 25424/06 and 36636/06 the applicants’ final decisions had only been partially enforced as the applicants have failed to cooperate with the State authorities or comply with the domestic procedural requirements, thus contributing essentially to the non‑enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis, Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, no. 32141/04 § 27, 8 November 2007); and, finally, that in respect of the application no. 50357/06, the applicant has failed to submit significant information, abusing therefore his right of individual petition within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (see Pirtskhalaishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 44328/05, 29 April 2010).
In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications are inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. However, in light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. It follows that the respective parts of the 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 9 July 2015.
Karen ReidLuis López Guerra
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
date of introduction
Applicant name
date of birth/date of registration
Relevant domestic decision(s)
3681/04
15/12/2003
S.C. BLANDUL BEN CM S.R.L.
Bucharest District Court, 23/11/2001
High Court of Justice, 23/05/2001
13746/05
01/03/2005
Eugen BĂLĂNESCU
19/03/1959
Constanța County Court, 23/05/2002
25424/06
08/06/2006
S.C. KHAWAM UNITED COMPANY S.R.L.
Bucharest District Court, 07/03/2005
33998/06
09/08/2006
Adriana BOGHEANU
20/02/1956
Dâmbovița County Court, 31/10/2005
36636/06
01/09/2006
Costache BĂDIC
21/07/1955
Galați County Court, 22/10/2004
50357/06
07/12/2006
S.C. MINAS S.R.L.
Murgeni Court of First Instance, 15/03/2005
12860/12
09/02/2012
Camelia Ortansa VÎNĂTORU
05/07/1958
Argeș County Court, 19/09/2011
29260/12
02/05/2012
Emanoil MIHĂILESCU
16/12/1935
Bucharest Court of Appeal, 22/10/2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy