CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 octobre 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .sFDD13903 { width:219.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3312A5D3 { width:5.56%; 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 } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6815B2ED { width:14.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAAC03F1A { width:27.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3BDC173A { width:14.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s256F5E63 { width:13.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4C194055 { width:24.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB9C141FC { width:5.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { 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 } .s977AD443 { width:14.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s507AFE07 { width:27.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s27855A4F { width:14.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCD45BF3 { width:13.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s895F2355 { width:24.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 17798/04 Delia Rodica FARCAȘ against Romania and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   October   2015 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Grițco, President ,   Branco Lubarda,   Mārtiņš Mits, 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 is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention. 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 The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v.   Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI). 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-compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court thus notes that in applications nos.   17798/04, 37591/05, 35109/12 and 61774/13, taking into consideration the overall length of proceedings, the applicants’ conduct and the conduct of the authorities, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Văcăruş v.   Romania , no. 1012/02, §§ 71-79, 4 November 2008 and Farcaş and Others v. Romania , no. 67020/01, §§ 31-35, 10 November 2005); in application no. 31919/07, the applicant failed to comply with the six-month rule; in applications nos. 35888/10 and 43067/10, the proceedings concerned claims for restitution of nationalised property based on special restitution laws, which in the light of the relevant case law (see Preda and Others v. Romania , nos. 9584/02, 33514/02, 38052/02, 25821/03, 29652/03, 3736/03, 17750/03 and 28688/04, § 154, 29 April 2014) should be declared inadmissible. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the complaints are inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded 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 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 22 October 2015.   Karen Reid   Valeriu Grițco   Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction   Applicant name Date of birth Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length and levels of jurisdiction     17798/04 03/05/2004 Delia Rodica FARCAȘ 03/07/1958   26/06/1995 24/10/2003 8 years and 4 months 3 levels of jurisdiction     37591/05 12/10/2005 Stan VOICU 22/06/1948 (the applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Court; the application was pursued by his heirs Eliea VOICU and Mihail VOICU)   24/11/2003 14/04/2005 1 year and 4 months 2 levels of jurisdiction     31919/07 23/07/2007 Mihaela TEODORESCU 12/11/1950   21/06/2001 04/07/2006 5 years 2 levels of jurisdiction     35888/10 16/06/2010 Robert FLEISCHER 12/02/1939 Nicolaie SCHECHTER n/a 18/03/2002 26/10/2009 7 years and 7 months 3 levels of jurisdiction     43067/10 21/07/2010 Elena BĂRBULESCU 01/12/1925   24/07/2001 27/01/2010 8 years and 6 months 3 levels of jurisdiction     35109/12 27/04/2012 Raveca STUPAR 13/07/1948 Rareș Lucian STUPAR 28/10/1979 Simona Adela MĂTIEȘ 24/12/1973   28/02/2005 03/11/2011 6 years and 9 months 3 levels of jurisdiction     61774/13 18/09/2013 Vergil GALBURE 04/07/1951   25/06/2009 30/04/2013 3 years and 10 months 2 levels of jurisdiction