CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 novembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC6271ACD { width:186.41pt; 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s39FC5D7A { height:22.45pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44669/05 S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L. against Romania and 11 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19   November   2015 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, 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 and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or the 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 were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). 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 AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 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 , nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, § 57, 7 January 2014). 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. 44669/05, 24212/10, 25468/10, 30058/10, 30103/10, 13940/14 and 54326/14 the outstanding judgments can no longer 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 application no. 28918/09 is inadmissible in so far as the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies (see Rotescu and Others v. Romania , no. 6524/03, § 9, 13 May 2014 (dec.); that application no. 44399/09 must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (see Albert and Others v. Romania , no. 48006/11, § 59, 8 January 2013 (dec.); and that in applications nos. 35921/07, 64299/10 and 43535/12 the applicants have lost their victim status (see, among many other authorities, Halilovic v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 21206/07, § 19, 17 January 2012). In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications are inadmissible 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 Some 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 10 December 2015.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   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/Date of registration   Relevant domestic decision     44669/05 08/12/2005 S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L.   The High Court of Cassation and Justice, 24/02/2004       35921/07 17/07/2007 Mariana-Maria GAVRILOIU 13/10/1959   Deva District Court, 12/03/1992       28918/09 24/04/2009 Viorica POSTELNICU 29/09/1935   Buzău County Court, 24/02/2009       44399/09 10/08/2009 Floarea LEAUA 12/12/1936   Bucharest County Court, 04/03/2005       24212/10 23/04/2010 Iuliana PETRE 28/04/1952   Buzău District Court, 07/11/2008       25468/10 23/04/2010 Traian DĂNIŢĂ 11/10/1970   Buzău County Court, 18/03/2009       30058/10 23/04/2010 Ștefăniță Laurențiu VOICU 23/09/1977   Buzău County Court, 18/03/2009       30103/10 23/04/2010 Eugenia Daniela MIHALCEA 18/12/1960   Buzău County Court, 18/03/2009       64299/10 23/09/2010 Sorin Cristian CARP 28/12/1947   Brașov County Court, 23/03/2010     43535/12 05/07/2012 Traian CUCU 28/04/1965   Bucharest District Court of the 5 th Precinct, 21/06/2010     13940/14 04/01/2014 Ștefan LUNGEANU 14/11/1957   High Court of Cassation and Justice, 08/02/2011   54326/14 10/07/2014 (19 applicants) Delia CHIRIȚĂ 16/04/1971   Adrian PETRESCU 27/01/1958   Teodora LUCACI 01/10/1971   Loredana MÎNECUȚĂ 13/10/1975   Maria COLEȘIU 31/05/1948   Gheorghe MIHAI 14/09/1952   Rodica Delia NICOLCIOIU 27/05/1972   Lucica MINEA 05/08/1968   Lucian BRAGHEȘIU 16/03/1971   Daniela Ileana CURT 06/05/1961   Steluța Liliana MOROIE 18/11/1975   Liliana CÎRSTEA 29/12/1969   Rodica OLTEANU 30/11/1970   Daniela STOICA 10/10/1960   Elena TITILINCU 15/05/1967   Dorel STOICA 27/06/1961   Lavinia IANOȘIU 05/01/1973   Lăcrămioara VIȘOIU 06/01/1973   Georgeta BREZEAN 06/10/1960   Brașov County Court, 16/12/2008