CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8934192D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s1F5238E4 { width:223.97pt; display:inline-block } .s1DB4E124 { width:246.32pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sAC521AF { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { 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 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }         THIRD SECTION                 CASE OF MARIN TEODORESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA   (Applications nos. 23777/06, 41239/07, 9129/09, 24290/12, 35520/13, 48755/13 and 56851/13)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   22 October 2015         This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Marin Teodorescu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Grițco, President ,   Branco Lubarda,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 October 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 Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 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 excessive length of civil proceedings. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     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 ...” 7.     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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no.   30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8.     In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania , nos.   40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     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 length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     Some applicants raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 12.     The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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 the Protocols thereto. 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 13.     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.” 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see Vlad and Others v. Romania , cited above, §§ 166-173), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 excessive length of civil proceedings admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   3.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 above amounts 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 22 October 2015, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. 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 Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length   Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant/ household (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     23777/06 29/05/2006 Marin TEODORESCU 17/07/1951 (the applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Court; the application was pursued by his heirs Elena TEODORESCU, Ionela Cristina TEODORESCU, Gheroghe Adrian TEODORESCU and Aurelian TEODORESCU)   Elena TEODORESCU Lădești, Vâlcea 27/10/2000 23/01/2007 6 years and 3   months 3 levels of jurisdiction 500 -     41239/07 11/09/2007 Floare ȚIȚ 28/04/1935 Teodora COLOJA Bihor 24/01/1995 15/03/2007 12 years and 1   month 3 levels of jurisdiction   2,520 350     9129/09 04/02/2009 Aurel ISCRU 01/04/1950   - 25/01/2005 pending 10 years and 6   months 1 level of jurisdiction 1,000 15     24290/12 11/04/2012 Virgil RADU 31/08/1951 - 01/06/2004 12/10/2011 7 years and 4   months 2 levels of jurisdiction   1,800 -     35520/13 23/04/2013 Dorina EPURAN 24/08/1957 Andreea Cosmina BĂDÎRCĂ Timișoara 29/10/2007 24/10/2012 4 years and 11   months 2 levels of jurisdiction   1,200 880     48755/13 17/07/2013 Household Teofil HAICA 30/04/1948 Adriana Florica HAICA 04/03/1960   - 24/01/2005 17/01/2013 7 years and 11   months 3 levels of jurisdiction 840 -     56851/13 26/08/2013 Măndița JUGĂNARU 22/09/1942 - 24/01/2008 17/04/2013 5 years and 2   months 2 levels of jurisdiction 1,200 -   [1] P lus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] P lus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.