CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 juin 2017

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s2737C6CF { width:157.76pt; display:inline-block } .sE6546C2D { width:159.78pt; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sE2D8D629 { width:93%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .s2A7E0E9B { width:3.9%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom: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 } .s7CFBB90D { width:15.68%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s833C4CB7 { width:18.28%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31110446 { width:24.38%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1EA478D4 { width:13.4%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9F30B5F { width:24.38%; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC0A02496 { width:3.9%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom: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 } .sF5EDC444 { width:15.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC39C6AF { width:18.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s383FAE3C { width:24.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s43A07E0F { width:13.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8EF213DE { width:24.38%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDFF1E260 { width:3.9%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCE2D597 { width:15.68%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7BED327D { width:18.28%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBF9B7D38 { width:24.38%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77EF0294 { width:13.4%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A3F9203 { width:24.38%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 30516/03 Mircea POPA against Romania and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy 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 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 15870/07, the applicant also complained of the excessive length of the proceedings, under Article   6   § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     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. B.     Complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) In the present applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints are inadmissible in any event, as presented below. Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour. In particular, the Court notes that the applicants failed to make appropriate use of the available domestic legal avenues and to comply with all the procedural and substantial requirements of the domestic law: subscription on the creditors’ ranking table in insolvency proceedings (application no. 30516/03), showing constant diligence in pursuing the enforcement proceedings (“ stăruire în executare”, application no. 3703/04), instituting enforcement proceedings (application no. 25089/06), statute of limitations (application no. 15870/07) (see for instance Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no.   33273/03, 22 March 2005). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. C.     Complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (length of the civil proceedings) In application no. 15870/07, the applicant also complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the civil proceedings finalised by the decision of 7 March 1995 of the Cluj District Court, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court observes that the period under consideration started on 7 June 1994 and ended on 7 March 1995, amounting to a total of 8 months and 29 days. The application was lodged with the Court on 19 March 2007. It follows that this part of the application no. 15870/07 is inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 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 20 July 2017.   Liv Tigerstedt   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the 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       30516/03 13/08/2003 Mircea Popa 30/03/1954 Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, 02/07/1998     Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court, 06/03/2003   02/07/1998       06/03/2003   pending More than 18 years and 10 months and 15 days   pending More than 14 years and 2 months and 11 days       3703/04 08/12/2003 Elena Stratan 06/07/1937 Iași County Court (domestic case-file no. 900/1996), 08/04/1996   09/09/1996   22/07/2010 13 years and 10 months and   14   days       25089/06 05/06/2006 Ana Marc 15/02/1941 Maramureș County Court (domestic case-file no. 2426/2005), 08/06/2005   08/06/2005   14/11/2005 5 months and 7 days       15870/07 19/03/2007 Lucian-Vasile Crişan-Lupa 04/06/1964 Cluj District Court, 07/03/1995   07/03/1995   pending More than 22 years and 2 months and 10 days