CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .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 } .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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 61446/11 Tiberiu Ioan VASILE against Romania and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   December 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, 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 criminal proceedings 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 The applicants complained that the length of the criminal 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 ...any criminal charge against him ... 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 the State cannot be held liable for the non ‑ compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court thus notes that, 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, Lazariu v. Romania , no. 31973/03, §§   149 ‑ 151, 13 November 2014 and Ion Popescu v. Romania (dec.), no.   4206/11, §§ 41 and 43, 17 March 2015). 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 January 2016.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal 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     61446/11 21/09/2011 Tiberiu Ioan VASILE 15/03/1963 -   31/01/2005   22/03/2011   6 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     21900/12 29/03/2012 Tiberiu Alexandru ARUS 08/05/1970 Daniela VOMIR BIZO Cluj Napoca 21/11/2003   29/11/2011   8 years   3 levels of jurisdiction     69855/12 20/10/2012 Nicolae Cristian ZAIU 05/09/1972 Marius Leontin COSTACHE Craiova 03/03/2004   14/05/2012   8 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction