CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 février 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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s501BE8A7 { width:150.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B02B696 { width:159.34pt; 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 } .s19426575 { height:33.95pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 623/11 Florea TUDORACHE against Romania and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   February 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 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) 1.     Preliminary issue 4.     As regards application no. 58884/11, in respect of the obligation to reinstate the applicant in his employment, the Court observes that the continuing situation ended when the insolvency proceedings involving his employer had started, namely on 16 November 2004 (see Cone v. Romania , no. 35935/02, § 26, 24 June 2008). Therefore, the Court notes that this complaint was introduced outside the six-month time-limit set out in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention.   2.     Remaining complaints 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 respect of applications nos. 623/11, 58884/11, 1780/11 and 66905/12, the Court considers 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: failing to pursue the enforcement proceedings and preventing them from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 623/11 and 1780/12); failing to use the available legal avenues to recover the debt from the private individuals found liable for the bankruptcy of the debtor company (application no.   58884/11, with regard to the obligation of payment of salary rights); failing to use the available legal avenues to clarify the property title (application no. 66905/12, with respect to plots nos. 12420/3 and 12421; see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005). 7.     As regards application no. 52299/12, 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 the applicant’s favour remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtor, a private person, did not have any assets (see Topciov v.   Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006). 8.     The Court finds, in respect of application no. 66905/12, as regards plots nos. 10538 and 12660, that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcement. The Court notes that the judgment in question was enforced within 7 months and 22 days. However, taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, which acted promptly and with diligence, the Court notes that this period is not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, §§ 9-10, 1   December 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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 8 March 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 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 Domestic order     623/11 19/10/2010 Florea Tudorache 27/04/1946 Ploiești District Court, 16/12/2005   05/05/2006   pending More than 11 years and 8 months and 11   days Orders a private person to vacate the applicant’s property.     58884/11 24/01/2006 Aurel Mătuşea 27/02/1956 Gorj County Court, 13/03/2003   04/12/2003   pending More than 14 years and 1 month and 12   days   Orders a private company to reinstate the applicant in his employment and to pay him salary rights.     1780/12 29/12/2011 Valentin Mircea Aldea 25/11/1956 Lucia Aldea 17/11/1954 Buzău District Court, 09/11/2005   09/11/2005   pending More than 12 years and 2 months and 7   days Orders a private person to vacate the applicant’s property.     52299/12 19/05/2012 Paul Popescu 18/10/1957 Ploiești District Court, 28/03/2009   28/03/2009   pending More than 8 years and 9 months and 19   days Orders a private person to pay the applicant 2,494.3 Romanian lei (LEI) representing court fees.     66905/12 08/10/2012 Rodica Cârcu 02/06/1945 represented by Sergiu Rădăcină, a   lawyer practising in Bistrița   Cluj Court of Appeal, 19/03/2001     Cluj Court of Appeal, 19/03/2001   19/03/2001       19/03/2001   09/11/2001 7 months and 22 days     11/07/2012 11 years and 3 months and 23 days Orders private persons to vacate the applicant’s plots of land nos. 10538 and 12660;   Orders private persons to vacate the applicant’s plots of land nos. 12420/3 and 12421.