CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 octobre 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 } .s6DB06886 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .sECF7D88E { height:64.15pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s873EE8B1 { height:48.6pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17024/06 Gheorghe PITĂROIU against Romania and 10 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   October 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 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments, as well as the complaint in application no.   49532/08 under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 19299/08, 41068/08 and 49532/08, 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 judgments) 4.     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 explained below. 5.     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. 6.     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: not using the available legal avenues to enforce the judgment, namely to demolish the debtors constructions at their expense (applications nos. 17024/06 and 53316/08); not acting diligently so as to prevent the enforcement proceedings from becoming obsolete (applications nos.   22928/08, with regard to the first set of enforcement proceedings, and 48082/08; see Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006); not pursuing the enforcement proceedings (applications nos. 41068/08 and 54610/08); not filing a request to register on the list of creditors (application no. 49532/08); failing to cooperate with the bailiff, namely refusing to accompany him to meetings with the purpose of enforcing the judgment (application no. 48097/08, in respect of the obligation to grant possession; see Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece , no. 32141/04, § 27, 8   November 2007, and Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22   March 2005). 7.     As regards application no. 19299/08, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgment. The Court notes however that the judgment in his favour remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtors, private parties, did not have any assets (see Topciov , cited above). 8.     As regards application no. 22928/08, in respect of the second set of enforcement proceedings, application no. 48097/08, in respect of the pecuniary obligation, as well as applications nos. 42418/07 and 49217/07, 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 judgments in question were enforced with delays ranging from 5 months to 9 years and 7 months. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings and the conduct of the applicants and of the authorities, which have acted promptly and with diligence, the Court finds that the complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Ion Popescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 4206/11, §§ 41-44, 17 March 2015, and Turturică and Others v. Romania (dec.), nos. 18805/10 and 2 others, 16   June 2016). 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.     Complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (length of the civil proceedings) 10.     In application no. 49532/08, the applicants also complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the civil proceedings, finalised by the judgment of 14 November 1996, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 11.     The Court observes that the period under consideration, namely from 20 June 1994 until 14 November 1996, amounted to a total of 2 years, 4   months and 26 days for three levels of jurisdiction which cannot be considered excessive. 12.     It follows that this part of the application no. 49532/08 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. D.     Remaining complaints 13.     In applications nos. 19299/08, 41068/08 and 49532/08, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 14.     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. 15.     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 9 November 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 judgments)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth/ Date of registration   Representative name and location Relevant domestic judgment Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Other complaints under well-established case-law     17024/06 19/04/2006 Gheorghe Pităroiu 27/06/1956 Zătreanu Ion Craiova Craiova District Court, 09/11/1993   04/06/1998   pending More than 19 years and 3   months and 5 days         42418/07 24/09/2007 Gheorghe Marin 28/03/1943     Brașov Court of Appeal, 03/12/2004   03/12/2004   10/07/2007 2 years and 7 months and 8   days         49217/07 06/11/2007 Maria Badea 05/10/1955     Argeș County Court, 07/07/2005   07/07/2005   08/12/2005 5 months and 2 days         19299/08 16/04/2008 Petrică-Corneliu Vladu 22/10/1955   Cristian Dumitroiu 02/08/1955 Cimpoeru Dan Bucarest Alba County Court, 16/11/2001   16/11/2001   pending More than 15 years and 9   months and 20 days         22928/08 09/05/2008 Costică Zaharia 26/08/1942     Galați District Court, 02/09/1992   Galați District Court, 20/05/2002   02/09/1992     27/08/2003   pending More than 25 years and 11   days   09/04/2013 9 years and 7 months and 14   days       41068/08 18/08/2008 Cristian Constantin Corbu 03/07/1968   Clara Denise Tahbaz 27/07/1969     Bucharest Court of Appeal, 19/11/2004     Bucharest Court of Appeal, 18/02/2008 19/11/2004       18/02/2008 06/05/2008 3 years and 5 months and 18   days   pending More than 9 years and 6   months and 18 days         48082/08 29/09/2008 Constantin Popovici 20/09/1948     Roman District Court, 14/12/2004   14/12/2004   pending More than 12 years and 8   months and 22 days         48097/08 23/09/2008 Aurora Iacob Born: 13/12/1926; deceased: 20/03/2013; Proceedings pursued by heir, Niculina Baciu, born on 06/04/1950.     Iași County Court, 23/06/2003     Iași County Court, 23/06/2003   23/06/2003       23/06/2003   01/02/2006 2 years and 7 months and 10   days   pending More than 14 years and 2   months and 13 days         49532/08 07/10/2008 S.A. Somi Urișor       Dej District Court, 14/06/1995   14/11/1996   pending More than 20 years and 9   months and 22 days   Art. 6 § 1 - excessive length of civil proceedings   53316/08 28/10/2008 Marin Cesar 09/03/1926     Bucharest District   1 Court, 20/12/2002   01/07/2005   pending More than 12 years and 2   months and 4 days       54610/08 29/10/2008 Aurelia Barbu 01/03/1960     Bucharest District   6 Court, 30/03/2007   Bucharest District   6 Court, 30/03/2007 30/03/2007       30/03/2007 28/12/2015 8 years and 8 months and 29   days   24/04/2008 1   year and 26 days