CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 19 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA9D8ED54 { width:210.98pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s73C6FB6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:0.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     THIRD SECTION           CASE OF CĂPITAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 16497/06, 43943/06, 5579/07, 35907/07, 30448/08, 32241/08, 43154/08, 1411/09, 3044/09, 16199/09, 29686/09, 23802/10, 43022/10, 1799/11 and 65420/11)                       JUDGMENT   This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 23 June 2016.     STRASBOURG   19 May 2015       This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Căpitan and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 April 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in fifteen applications (nos. 16497/06, 43943/06, 5579/07, 35907/07, 30448/08, 32241/08, 43154/08, 1411/09, 3044/09, 16199/09, 29686/09, 23802/10, 43022/10, 1799/11 and 65420/11) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian companies and fourteen Romanian nationals. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application are specified in the appended table. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Catrinel Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     In accordance with Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent Government, the applications were assigned to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES 4.     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. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 5.     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). THE LAW I.     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 judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 7.     The applicants complained that the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the final judgments rendered 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. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a ... tribunal” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 8.     The Court notes that the judgments in the present cases ordered the relevant authorities to execute various obligations in kind or to pay the applicants certain amounts of money. 9.     The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present applications (see for instance the Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu, cited above, §   78, and all the references therein). 10.     Its respective case-law is based on the principle that the right to a court 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). 11.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the present cases. 12.     Therefore, taking into account the complexity of the enforcement, the parties’ behaviour and the nature of the awards, the Court finds that the authorities have not deployed all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the judgments in the applicants’ favour. 13.     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all applications. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION 14.     The applicants in applications nos. 35907/07, 1411/09, 3044/09 and 29686/09 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 15.     However, in the light of all 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 or its Protocols. 16.     It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 46 AND 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Article 46 of the Convention 17.     Article 46 of the Convention provides: “1.     The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2.     The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.” 18.     In the light of its conclusions in respect of Article 46 of the Convention in the case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu (cited above, §§ 75-84), the Court considers that the Government must secure, by appropriate means, the full enforcement of the judgments which are still outstanding. B.     Article 41 of the Convention 19.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 20.     When fixing the amounts to be awarded under this provision, the Court shall take due account of the fact that some applicants (see applications nos. 30448/08, 43154/08, 16199/09 and 23802/10) have not submitted any pertinent just satisfaction claims, while others (see applications nos. 16497/06, 5579/07, 32241/08, 3044/09 and 43022/10) have either made no claims for costs and expenses or have not submitted any relevant supporting documents. 21.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and its case law (see the Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu, cited above, §§ 90-91), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses the sums indicated in the appended table. 22.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares admissible the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in respect of all applications and the remainder of applications nos. 35907/07, 1411/09, 3044/09 and 29686/09 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the judgments which are still outstanding; (b)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (c)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   5.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 May 2015, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth   Relevant domestic decision Length of enforcement proceedings Article 41 (EUR)   16497/06 17/03/2006 Marcel Ioan CĂPITAN 08/01/1963 Decision of 12 March 2004, the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal 10 years and 10 months pending Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 Costs and expenses: no award   43943/06 19/07/2006 Cosmin Adrian ENE 30/07/1971 Decision of 11 October 2004, the Bucharest District Court 3 years and 8 months Non-pecuniary damage: 1,778 Costs and expenses: 150   5579/07 13/12/2006 Nicolae TOADER 13/11/1952   Decision of 15 March 2005, the Prahova County Court 2 years and 5 months Non-pecuniary damage: 1,600 Costs and expenses: no award   35907/07 08/08/2007 Viorica GHILAȘ 04/04/1948 Decision of 2 November 1998, the Bucharest Court of Appeal 10 years and 5 months Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 Costs and expenses: 300   30448/08 13/06/2008 Tinca ALEXANDRU 21/04/1943 Decision of 2 November 1998, the Bucharest Court of Appeal 10 years and 5 months   Non-pecuniary damage: no award Costs and expenses: no award     32241/08 24/06/2008 Sylvia LEIBOVICI 22/04/1936 Decision of 15 March 2005, the Bucharest District Court, final on 22 September 2005 5 years and 8 months Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700 Costs and expenses: no award   43154/08 02/09/2008 S.C. PROSIM S.R.L. 26/07/1996 Decision of 29 September 2006, the Bucharest District Court, final on 9 February 2007 7 years and 11 months pending Non-pecuniary damage: no award Costs and expenses: no award     1411/09 22/12/2008 S.C. KYO INC S.R.L. Decision of 3 August 2007, the Satu Mare County Court 1 year and 4 months Non-pecuniary damage: 600 Costs and expenses: 250   3044/09 23/12/2008 Adrian Alexandru NICULESCU Decision of 11 April 2006, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, final on 26 January 2007 8 years pending   Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700 Costs and expenses: no award   16199/09 17/03/2009 1. Romeo Viorel POPESCU 24/08/1939   2. Sandina DINCĂ 07/09/1949 a) decision of 2 November 2006, the Ploiești Court of Appeal     b) decision of 11 May 2007, the Prahova County Court, final on 18 September 2007   8 years and 2 months pending   7 years and 4 months pending Non-pecuniary damage: no award Costs and expenses: no award   29686/09 24/05/2009 Ioan HANDREA 03/07/1961 Decision of 22 May 2008, the Cluj Court of Appeal, final on 3 December 2008 6 years and 1 month pending Non-pecuniary damage: 2,500 Costs and expenses: 500   23802/10 21/04/2010 Ioan PETRACHI 13/07/1937 Decision of 3 December 2008, the Iasi County Court, final on 16 March 2009 2 years and 4 months Non-pecuniary damage: no award Costs and expenses: no award   43022/10 16/06/2010 Florian SÎRBU 09/08/1971 Decision of 11 November 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice 2 years and 6 months Non-pecuniary damage: 2,000 Costs and expenses: no award   1799/11 06/12/2010 George Laurențiu PREDA 22/11/1971 Decision of 13 April 2009, the Târgu Jiu Court of First Instance, final on 19 May 2009 5 years and 8 months pending Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 Costs and expenses: 430     65420/11 06/10/2011 Alexandru BĂDULESCU 12/06/1948 Decisions of 16 October 2007, the Bucharest District Court, final on 21 March 2008 3 years and 4 months   Non-pecuniary damage: 2,300 Costs and expenses: 1,070