FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 44669/05
S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L. against Romania
and 11 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 November 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, 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, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, § 57, 7 January 2014).
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 applications nos. 44669/05, 24212/10, 25468/10, 30058/10, 30103/10, 13940/14 and 54326/14 the outstanding judgments can no longer 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 application no. 28918/09 is inadmissible in so far as the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies (see Rotescu and Others v. Romania, no. 6524/03, § 9, 13 May 2014 (dec.); that application no. 44399/09 must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (see Albert and Others v. Romania, no. 48006/11, § 59, 8 January 2013 (dec.); and that in applications nos. 35921/07, 64299/10 and 43535/12 the applicants have lost their victim status (see, among many other authorities, Halilovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 21206/07, § 19, 17 January 2012).
In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Some 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 10 December 2015.
Karen ReidVincent A. De Gaetano
RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth/Date of registration
Relevant domestic decision
44669/05
08/12/2005
S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L.
The High Court of Cassation and Justice, 24/02/2004
35921/07
17/07/2007
Mariana-Maria GAVRILOIU
13/10/1959
Deva District Court, 12/03/1992
28918/09
24/04/2009
Viorica POSTELNICU
29/09/1935
Buzău County Court, 24/02/2009
44399/09
10/08/2009
Floarea LEAUA
12/12/1936
Bucharest County Court, 04/03/2005
24212/10
23/04/2010
Iuliana PETRE
28/04/1952
Buzău District Court, 07/11/2008
25468/10
23/04/2010
Traian DĂNIŢĂ
11/10/1970
Buzău County Court, 18/03/2009
30058/10
23/04/2010
Ștefăniță Laurențiu VOICU
23/09/1977
Buzău County Court, 18/03/2009
30103/10
23/04/2010
Eugenia Daniela MIHALCEA
18/12/1960
Buzău County Court, 18/03/2009
64299/10
23/09/2010
Sorin Cristian CARP
28/12/1947
Brașov County Court, 23/03/2010
43535/12
05/07/2012
Traian CUCU
28/04/1965
Bucharest District Court of the 5th Precinct, 21/06/2010
13940/14
04/01/2014
Ștefan LUNGEANU
14/11/1957
High Court of Cassation and Justice, 08/02/2011
54326/14
10/07/2014
(19 applicants)
Delia CHIRIȚĂ
16/04/1971
Adrian PETRESCU
27/01/1958
Teodora LUCACI
01/10/1971
Loredana MÎNECUȚĂ
13/10/1975
Maria COLEȘIU
31/05/1948
Gheorghe MIHAI
14/09/1952
Rodica Delia NICOLCIOIU
27/05/1972
Lucica MINEA
05/08/1968
Lucian BRAGHEȘIU
16/03/1971
Daniela Ileana CURT
06/05/1961
Steluța Liliana MOROIE
18/11/1975
Liliana CÎRSTEA
29/12/1969
Rodica OLTEANU
30/11/1970
Daniela STOICA
10/10/1960
Elena TITILINCU
15/05/1967
Dorel STOICA
27/06/1961
Lavinia IANOȘIU
05/01/1973
Lăcrămioara VIȘOIU
06/01/1973
Georgeta BREZEAN
06/10/1960
Brașov County Court, 16/12/2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy