CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 janvier 2018

.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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s6CEC0672 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; 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 } .sC1E94DFD { height:46pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3634/04 Teodor GAVRIŞ against Romania and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   January 2018 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. 3634/04 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). 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 presented below. 5.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour. 6.     In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 3634/04 , 56557/10 and 26300/08, as regards the judgments concerning financial orders, the applicants have lost their victim status since the judgments have been duly enforced and within a reasonable time (see, among many other authorities, Kravtsov v. Russia , no. 39272/04, § 24, 5 April 2011, and Dumitru and others v. Romania (dec.), no. 57265/08, §§ 50-51, 4   September   2012). In application no. 6329/04, the obligation incumbent on the State authorities to demolish a garage was not enforced as the applicant opposed the demolition, thus contributing substantially to the non ‑ enforcement (see, mutatis mutandis , Kosmidis and Kosmidou v.   Greece , no.   32141/04 § 27, 8 November 2007). Similarly, in application no.   26300/08, the remaining outstanding judgment could not be enforced due to the failure to reach an agreement with the applicant (ibid.). Finally, in application no. 56557/10, concerning the failure to enforce the award of 584   Romanian lei (ROL) representing court fees, considering the rather minor amount of the award (roughly equal to 140 euros (EUR)), the Court finds that the applicant did not suffer a significant disadvantage as a result of the authorities’ failure to enforce the impugned award (see Korolev v.   Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010, and Vasilchenko v. Russia , no.   34784/02, §§ 49-50, 23 September 2010). 7.     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) 8.     In application no. 3634/04, 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 judgment of 21 April 2003 was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 9.     The Court observes that the period under consideration, namely from 29 April 2002 until 21 April 2003, amounted to a total of 11 months and 22   days for two levels of jurisdiction, which cannot be considered excessive. 10.     It follows that this part of the application no. 3634/04 is 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 8 February 2018.   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   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     3634/04 04/12/2003 Teodor Gavriş 30/07/1950 Caraș-Severin County Court, 04/12/2002   21/04/2003   16/12/2003 7 months and 26 days   Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of civil proceedings     6329/04 29/01/2004 Viorel Popescu 28/06/1956 Bucharest County Court, 02/05/2001   25/10/2001   pending More than 16 years and 1 month and 17 days         26300/08 22/05/2008 Ion-Romică Sandu 14/10/1959 Timișoara Court of Appeal, 21/04/1998   Timișoara Court of Appeal, 21/04/1998   12/02/2004     12/02/2004   16/03/2004 1 month and 5 days   pending More than 13 years and 10 months       56557/10 22/09/2010 Mihăiță-Alin Ilie 11/03/1973 Botoşani County Court, 12/06/2009 15/10/2009 pending More than 8 years and 1 month and 29 days