CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE90F10EF { width:187.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sEF21C475 { width:119.8%; border-collapse:collapse } .sDC5C250D { width:6.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sD7008EB6 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5B389FFD { width:28.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF0439358 { width:43.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s365AAAF9 { width:6.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEE3B17D3 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .s97296F0 { width:0.81pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA5F87864 { width:21.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF0CF54F7 { width:28.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s207AD96B { width:43.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 22994/08 Leonard VĂCARU against Romania and 5 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   February   2015 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates specified 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: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants’ names and other details, as well as the date of lodging and the date of communication to the Government of each application are specified in the appended table. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered 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. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     The relevant domestic legal provisions and procedures concerning the enforcement of final judgments against State authorities are described in the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania (nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, §§   36-40, 7   January   2014). COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complained that the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the final judgments in their favour had infringed their right to access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also their right to property as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them in a single decision. B.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 regarding non-enforcement 7.     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). 8.     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. 22994/08 and 41315/08, the period of enforcement was of less than one year (see for instance Kalinina and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 43727/07, 23 September 2010); that in application no. 22994/08, 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 application no. 71791/12, the applicant has failed to cooperate with the State authorities, thus contributing essentially to the delay in the enforcement (see for example Kosmidis and Kosmidou v.   Greece , no.   32141/04, § 27, 8 November 2007); that the applicant in the application no.   23400/08 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); and finally that in respect of the applications nos.   17802/10 and 49565/11, the applicants have lost their victim status, in so far as the outstanding judgments had been dully and timely enforced (see, among many other authorities, Halilovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no.   21206/07, § 19, 17 January 2012). 9.     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. C.     Other complaints 10.     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 26 February 2015.   Marialena Tsirli   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No Application no. Date of introduction Date of communication to the Government Applicant name Date of birth Relevant domestic decision(s)   22994/08 09/05/2008 10/04/2012 Leonard VĂCARU 12/10/1958 1. Decision of 21 May 2007, Bacău Court of Appeal, final on 14 November 2007;   2. Decision of 26 May 2009, Neamţ County Court, final on 23   October 2009.     23400/08 05/05/2008 10/04/2012 1. S.C. GESUREX S.R.L.   2. Ecrem NAZIF 10/05/1950   1. Decision of 8 January 2002, Constanţa County Court, final on 24 June 2002;   2. Decision of 25 June 2007, Brăila County Court, final on 28 November 2007.   41315/08 30/07/2008 07/05/2013 Virgil GHERGHEL 31/10/1960   Decision of 5 February 2008, Maramureş County Court, final on 25 June 2008.   17802/10 10/03/2010 10/04/2012   Veronica ION 05/09/1962 Decision of 7 October 2008, Ialomiţa County Court, final on 13 March 2009.   49565/11 01/06/2011 07/05/2013   Cornel Damian IRIMESCU 23/05/1954 Decision of 19 February 2009, Dâmboviţa County Court, final on 3 December 2010.   71791/12 19/09/2012 07/05/2013 Olimpia POPA 07/03/1937 Decision of 10 June 2005, Suceava County Court, final on 29 September 2005.