CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 septembre 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 33196/03 Ion POSTOLACHI against Romania and 8 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   September 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 1.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 2.     The applicants’ complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 33196/03, 31566/04, 27200/05, 3651/09 and 52486/10 the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Joinder of the applications 3.     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) 1.     Locus standi 4.     Assuming that the applicants Terezia Varga (application no.   27200/05) and Elena Stolerenco (application no. 23498/08), the grandmothers of Rita ‑ Larisa Varga and Ionel Adrian Ciobanu, respectively, are entitled to bring proceedings before the Court not only in their own name, but also on behalf of their grandchildren, these complaints are inadmissible, for the reasons stated below. 2.     The applicants’ complaints relating to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 5.     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. 6.     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. 7.     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, as follows: instituting enforcement proceedings (applications nos. 33196/03, 23498/08 and 3651/09); acting diligently so as to prevent the enforcement proceedings from becoming obsolete (application no. 49475/09; see also Topciov v. Romania, (dec.), no. 17369/02, 16 June 2006); instituting enforcement proceedings against all debtors and filing a revocation action (“ acțiune pauliană ”, application no. 76957/14; see also Ciprova v.   the   Czech Republic (dec.), no.   33273/03, 22 March 2005, and Costică Moldovan and others v. Romania (dec.), no. 8229/04, §§ 153-154, 15   February 2011). 8.     As regards applications nos. 31566/04, 27200/05, 44771/07 and 52486/10, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgments. The Court notes however that the outstanding judgments remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtors, private parties, either did not have any assets or had gone abroad (see Tanasenko v. Moldova (dec.), no. 77608/01, 28 February 2006). 9.     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.     Other alleged violations under well-established case-law 10.     In application no. 31566/04, the applicants also complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the civil proceedings, finalised by decision of 27 April 2004, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 11.     The Court observes that the period under consideration, namely from 11 July 2001 until 27 April 2004, amounted to a total of 2 years, 9 months and 17 days for 3 levels of jurisdiction which cannot be considered excessive. 12.     It follows that this part of the application no. 31566/04 is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 13.     In application no. 52486/10, the applicants complained of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of their complaint of non ‑ enforcement. 14.     The Court notes that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). 15.     The Court has found that the applicants’ complaint under Article   6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention is manifestly ill-founded. It follows that the applicants do not have an arguable claim under Article   13. 16.     Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. D.     Remaining complaints 17.     In applications nos.   33196/03, 31566/04, 27200/05, 3651/09 and 52486/10 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 18.     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 either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 19.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with 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 12 October 2017.   Liv Tigerstedt   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of 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   Representative name and location Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Other complaints under well-established case-law     33196/03 16/09/2003 Ion Postolachi 01/08/1948     Cluj-Napoca District Court, 19/04/2000   16/11/2000   pending More than 16 years and 7   months and 1 day         31566/04 12/08/2004 Gabriel Emil Popa 05/10/1967, application lodged on 12/08/2004 Florica Popa 01/11/1970, application lodged on 01/08/2005   Organizația Pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului Bucharest Bucharest Court of Appeal, 27/04/2004   27/04/2004   pending More than 13 years and 1   month and 21 days   Art. 6(1) - excessive length of civil proceedings     27200/05 22/07/2005 Terezia Varga 18/10/1953 Rita-Larisa Varga 21/04/2002       Maramureș County Court, 22/02/2007   19/10/2007   pending More than 9 years and 7 months and 29 days         44771/07 10/08/2007 Zvjezdana Halapir Ramsay 03/06/1967     Zagreb District Court, 21/07/2004   11/12/2006   pending More than 10 years and 6 months and 6 days       23498/08 15/12/2007 Elena Stolerenco 20/03/1950 Ionel Adrian Ciobanu 08/01/1992       Caraș-Severin County Court, 01/04/2004     Caraș-Severin County Court, 22/07/2004   11/11/2004       11/11/2004   pending More than 12 years and 7 months and 6 days   pending More than 12 years and 7 months and 6 days       3651/09 05/01/2009 Sanda Doina Pitei 25/07/1960     Ploiești District Court, 15/11/1999   15/11/1999   pending More than 17 years and 7 months and 2 days         49475/09 07/09/2009 Octavian Stancescu 05/08/1951     Dâmbovița County Court, 13/04/2007   13/04/2007   pending More than 10 years and 2 months and 4 days       52486/10 18/08/2010 (3 applicants) Mihaela Chis 15/06/1965 Alexandru Tudor Chiș 05/09/1990 Iulian Antoniu Chiș 29/06/1996     Cluj-Napoca District Court, 13/11/2008   09/06/2009   pending More than 8 years and 8 days   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.     76957/14 24/11/2014 Constanţa Dumitru 07/08/1955 Roxana Elena Dumitru 20/05/1986     Prahova County Court, domestic case file no.   2490/94/2007, 15/04/2011   27/10/2011   pending More than 4 years and 5 months and 27 days