CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sF66B8D08 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD5195560 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE8EAB139 { width:196.75pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s24238E10 { width:232.12pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCE735C95 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE933ECD6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s50597860 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sF3B8B73E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF ILIE GUȚĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 36255/05, 20167/08, 21294/08, 25300/09, 46087/09 and 72306/13)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   21 May 2015       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the cases of Ilie Guță and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 April 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or 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. 5.     In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention. 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 of the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on 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 reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article   6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see among many other authorities Hornsby v. Greece , no.18357/91, § 40, 19 March 1997). 9.     In the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania (nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7   January 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered the relevant authorities to execute various obligations in kind or to pay the applicants certain amounts of money. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see for instance the Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu , cited above, § 69). 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 12.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 14.   The Court has carefully examined the applications 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 do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 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 ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     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.” 16.     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 sums indicated in the appended table. 17.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable. 18.     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 the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, set out in the appended table, admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;   4.     Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;   5.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three   months, the amounts as indicated in the appended table, to be converted into national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the amount indicated in the appended table at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 May 2015, pursuant to Rule   77 §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Karen Reid   Luis López Guerra Registrar   President 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   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period   End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     36255/05 04/09/2004 Ilie GUȚĂ 21/02/1937 Pitești Court of First Instance, 27/09/2002 Cluj County Court, 22/12/2008 23/03/2004 22/12/2008 pending; 11 years pending; 6 years and 2 months 4,700 10,000     20167/08 24/03/2008 Bogdan Constantin MARINESCU 01/05/1952 Pitești Court of First Instance, 11/02/1999 03/12/2002 pending; 12 years and 4 months 3,600 110     21294/08 21/04/2008 Daniela Ștefania DREȘCĂ 16/01/1959 Craiova Court of Appeal, 09/05/2005 09/05/2005 24/04/2009 ; 3 years and 11 months 2,700 320     25300/09 23/04/2009 Maria BĂDULESCU 24/10/1954 Bucharest District 5 Court of First Instance, 19/11/2007 08/05/2008 25/09/2009; 1 year and 5 months 600 -     46087/09 04/06/2009 Eugeniu VASILE deceased on 24 December 2013 pursued by heir: Elena VASILE Neamț County Court, 13/07/2007 17/09/2007 pending; 7 years and 6 months - -     72306/13 12/11/2013   Ivan POPOV 28/11/1954 Galați County Court, 30/10/2012   21/05/2013 11/09/2014; 1 year and 4 months 600 -   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.