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 } .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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s2FE76575 { height:39.05pt } .s896457AE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 7823/04 Alesandru ANGHEL and Maria ANGHEL against Romania and 19 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, as well as the complaint in application no. 19534/10 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos.   7823/04, 20670/04, 34051/05, 26940/07, 41659/08, 56179/08, 18963/09 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) 1.     Preliminary objections 4 .     As regards application no. 20670/04, the Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six ‑ month rule. According to the Government, this time-limit had started to run from 20 March 2003, the date when the Arad County Court had closed the enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicant company. 5.     The applicant company did not address this preliminary objection in its observations. 6.     The Court reiterates that in cases involving the execution of a final court judgment a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant judgment or when an “objective impossibility” to enforce such judgment is duly acknowledged (see Sokolov and Others v.   Serbia (dec.), no. 30859/10, § 29, 14 January 2014). 7 .     Turning to the above-mentioned case, the Court observes that the six ‑ month time-limit had started to run from 20 March 2003, when the Arad County Court duly acknowledged the “objective impossibility” to enforce the outstanding judgment. The Court therefore agrees with the Government and finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non ‑ compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application no. 20670/04 must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 8 .     As regards applications nos. 9280/06 and 26940/07, in respect of the obligation to reinstate the applicants in their employment, the Court observes that the continuing situations ended when the insolvency proceedings involving their employers had started, namely on 16   November 2004 and 22 June 1999 respectively (see Cone v. Romania , no. 35935/02, §   26, 24 June 2008). Therefore, the Court notes that these complaints too were 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. 9 .     In respect of application no. 41659/08, the Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae . In this connection they pointed out that the outstanding judgment of 22 September 2006 included an obligation in favour of a third party, and not the applicant. 10.     The applicant disagreed. 11 .     In light of all the evidence before it, and in particular noting that in the judgment of 22 September 2006 the national court ruled in favour of a third party, the Court considers that the Government’s objection as regards the applicant’s lack of legal standing must be upheld. It follows that these complaints in application no. 41659/08 are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 12.     The Court finds that it does not need to rule on the rest of the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints in the remaining applications are inadmissible in any event, as presented below. 2.     Remaining applications 13.     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 in the remaining applications. 14.     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: failing to use the available legal avenues to recover the debt from the private individuals found liable for the bankruptcy of the debtor companies (applications nos. 9280/06, with regard to the obligation of payment of salary rights, and 29395/07); failing to pursue the enforcement proceedings and preventing them from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 7797/09, 16513/10 and 30794/10); failing to institute enforcement proceedings (application no. 9311/09); failing to subscribe on the creditors’ ranking table in insolvency proceedings (application no. 13432/09); failing to pursue the proceedings establishing the insolvency of the debtor company and failing to request the appointment of a liquidator (application no.   18963/09); failing to take adequate measures to clarify the property title (application no. 48239/09; see Pușcaș v. Romania , no. 30502/03, §§ 61-64, 11 October 2007); failing to institute enforcement proceedings over the debtor’s immovable assets (application no. 54591/09); failing to prove whether enforcement proceedings had been instituted (application no.   19534/10, with regard to the judgment of 20 December 2005 issued by the Cluj Napoca District Court; see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005). 15.     In respect of applications nos. 7823/04, 13037/06, 26940/07 (with regard to the obligation of payment of salary rights), 56179/08 and 15066/09 (with regard to the judgments of 18 February 2005 and of 22   September 2006) 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 their 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 v. Romania (dec.), no.   17369/02, 15 June 2006). 16.     As regards applications nos. 34051/05 (in respect of the judgment of 27   October 2003), 5455/09, 15066/09 (in respect of the judgment of 14   November 2003), as well as application no. 19534/10 (in respect of the remaining judgments), the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcement. The Court notes that the judgments in question were enforced within periods ranging from 3 years and 7 months to 8 years and 10 months. However, taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicants as well as the conduct of the authorities, which 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 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare 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). 17.     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 18.     In application no. 19534/10, the applicants complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of their non-enforcement complaint. 19.     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). 20.     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 and Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case. 21.     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 22.     In applications nos. 7823/04, 20670/04, 34051/05, 26940/07, 41659/08, 56179/08 and 18963/09, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 23.     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. 24.     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 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 judgments)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth/Date of registration   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     7823/04 26/01/2004 Alesandru Anghel 09/02/1949   Maria Anghel 29/08/1954 Timișoara District Court, 29/11/2000   18/06/2001   pending More than 16 years and 5 months and 7 days       20670/04 04/03/2004 S.C. Ewb Trading S.R.L.   Oradea Court of Appeal, 13/04/1999   04/04/2000   20/03/2003 2 years and 11 months and 17 days       34051/05 14/09/2005 S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. , represented by Vesselin Kamenov     Constanța County Court, 27/10/2003   27/10/2003   22/06/2007 3 years and 7 months and 27 days         9280/06 24/01/2006 Adriana Crăete 06/10/1957 Gorj County Court, 06/03/2003   04/12/2003   pending More than 13 years and 11 months and 20 days       13037/06 29/03/2006 Constantin Fiastru 16/09/1939 Craiova Court of Appeal, 25/09/2002 25/09/2002 pending More than 15 years and 2 months and 10 days       26940/07 06/09/2004 Traian Zahu 16/04/1947 Baia Mare District Court, 23/09/1997   05/02/1998   pending More than 19 years and 9 months and 19 days       29395/07 29/06/2007 Petre Mihăilescu 12/05/1946   Ioana Mihailescu 30/04/1947 Bucharest District 3 Court, 17/10/2005   13/10/2006   pending More than 11 years and 1 month and 11 days         41659/08 25/08/2008 A.P.F. Şopu Neculai , represented by Olteanu Ionel   Ialomița County Court, 22/09/2006   16/04/2007   pending More than 10 years and 7 months and 8 days         56179/08 14/11/2008 Marin Lungu 13/08/1952 Bucharest District Court, 31/03/1998   03/06/1999   pending More than 18 years and 5 months and 22 days       5455/09 15/01/2009 Liviu Tarcău 06/06/1936 Toplița District Court, 12/04/2005   Toplița District Court, 08/10/2007   03/11/2005         26/06/2008   pending More than 12 years and 22 days   31/01/2011 2 years and 7 months and 6 days     7797/09 02/02/2009 Valeriu Petrescu 28/11/1939 Timiș County Court, 20/08/1999 14/11/2000 pending More than 17 years and 11 days     9311/09 30/01/2009 Nicolae Trancău 11/08/1956 Târgu-Jiu District Court, 26/03/2004   26/03/2004   pending More than 13 years and 7 months and 30 days       13432/09 10/02/2009 Mariana Paula Uleşteanu 28/06/1945, represented by Patit Victoria, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Bucharest County Court, 13/06/2006   13/06/2006   pending More than 11 years and 5 months and 11 days     15066/09 10/03/2009 A.F. Roman Aurica struck out from the trade registry: 31/07/2007; Proceedings pursued by sole associate, Roman Aurica, born on 15/03/1961, represented by Jurj Vasile Baia Mare District Court, 14/11/2003       Maramureș County Court, 18/02/2005       Maramureș County Court, 22/09/2006   14/11/2003         18/02/2005         27/09/2006   10/12/2008 5 years and 27 days       pending More than 12 years and 9 months and 7 days     pending More than 11 years and 1 month and 29 days     18963/09 23/03/2009 Maria Ștefan 11/05/1954 Constanța District Court, 11/03/2002   21/03/2006   pending More than 11 years and 8 months and 4 days       48239/09 02/09/2009 Pavel Băcilă 11/09/1947 Mediaș District Court, 12/09/2005   31/10/2005   pending More than 12 years and 25 days       54591/09 25/09/2009 Ana Eugenia Simionescu 01/01/1942 Roșiorii de Vede District Court, 21/06/2006   16/11/2006   pending More than 11 years and 9 days     16513/10 03/03/2010 Valeria Silveanu   Olt District Court, 05/04/1999     Slatina District Court, 25/04/2001   05/04/1999       25/04/2001   pending More than 18 years and 7 months and 19 days   pending More than 16 years and 6 months and 30 days         19534/10 01/04/2010 Vasile Miron 10/08/1936   Ana Miron 07/11/1937 represented by Chiriţă Radu Liviu, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca   Cluj Napoca District Court, 14/09/1994       Cluj Napoca District Court, 20/12/1995     Cluj Napoca District Court, 29/07/1998     Cluj Napoca District Court, 08/05/1998       Cluj Napoca District Court, 13/01/2003       Cluj Napoca District Court, 01/07/2005       Cluj Napoca District Court, 20/12/2005     Mangalia District Court, 05/12/2006   Cluj Napoca District Court, 16/06/2006   24/11/1994         20/02/1996       29/07/1998       21/05/2002         15/10/2003         22/02/2006         07/03/2006       05/12/2006     07/12/2006   30/07/1996 1 year and 8 months and 7 days     30/07/1996 5 months and 11 days     17/12/1998 4 months and 19 days     07/06/2005 3 years and 18 days       06/09/2012 8 years and 10 months and 23 days     02/10/2007 1 years and 7 months and 11 days     pending More than 11 years and 8 months and 18 days   02/10/2007 9 months and 28 days   02/10/2007 9 months and 26 days   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law   30794/10 07/05/2010 Marian Constantin 24/05/1979 represented by Constantin Petru Suceava Court of Appeal, 07/01/2003   07/01/2003   pending More than 14 years and 10 months and 18 days