CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 avril 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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .s63B28A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:9pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s6B733FE4 { width:5.96%; 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 } .s4C6A39CE { width:15.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC3544AD3 { width:22.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD6004886 { width:18.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1753EDC8 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s40511C21 { width:23%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBDDFB400 { width:5.96%; 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 } .s82252708 { width:15.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s48DFC957 { width:22.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB64D8D4F { width:18.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECAEFE96 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s138E33D8 { width:23%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA544500 { height:32.8pt } .s2F5D88E { height:62.15pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 11443/09 Ion POPESCU against Romania and 8 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12   April   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 objections 4.     As regards application no. 77538/13, the Court notes, as also submitted by the Government, that the judgment of 7 June 2010 was issued in favour of a third party, and not the applicant company. The applicant company did not bring any arguments capable of disproving this finding. 5.     In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant company cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of its rights under the Convention, for the purposes of Article 34 (see Dimitrescu v. Romania , nos.   5629/03 and 3028/04, § 34, 3 June 2008). 6.     It follows that this application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 7.     As concerns the remaining applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government because these applications are in any event inadmissible for the reasons presented below. 2.     Remaining applications 8.     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 judgments given in the applicants’ favour. 9.     In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 11443/09, 69010/13 and 9315/14, 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). 10.     In applications nos. 38783/13, 77310/13 and 53515/14, having regard to the particular context of the cases, namely the amounts to be paid and the domestic authorities’ assessment as to the impact of an immediate payment of the total amount, the Court considers that the measures taken by the national authorities to pay the amounts due in several instalments struck a fair balance between the applicants’ rights to see the judgments enforced within a reasonable time and the public interest at stake (see Dumitru and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 57265/08, §§ 45-52, 4 September 2012). 11.     In application no. 58870/13, the Court notes that the document to which the public authority was ordered to give access did not exist and consequently there was an objective impossibility to enforce the judgment (see Ciobanu and Others v. Romania , (dec.), nos. 898/06, 39374/07, 1161/08 and 36461/08, § 27, 6 September 2011). 12.     In application no. 46310/14, the Court observes that the applicant was invited to submit the original title deed but failed to do so. Therefore, the Court finds that it was the applicant’s conduct which led to an objective impossibility of enforcing the judgment in his favour (see Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece , no. 32141/04, § 27, 8 November 2007, and Bartoş v.   Romania , no. 16287/03, § 30, 26 January 2010). 13.     In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications 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 3 May 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 judgment)   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     11443/09 13/01/2009 Ion Popescu 07/03/1929 Bucharest County Court, 22/01/2008 02/04/2008   01/12/2008 8 months     38783/13 10/06/2013 Maria Papaianopol 25/11/1948   represented by Bogdan Adrian Papaianopol, a   lawyer practising in Bâșcov Argeș County Court, 20/09/2010     Argeș County Court, 10/01/2011 29/11/2010         31/03/2011 pending More than 7 years and 2 months and 17 days     pending More than 6 years and 10 months and 15 days     58870/13 05/09/2013 Maria Marchidann 01/09/1943 Bucharest County Court, 15/10/2008 26/01/2009   pending More than 9 years and 20 days     69010/13 02/10/2013 Aurelia Mara Mihăiesc 30/10/1969 Alba County Court, 23/11/2011 10/04/2012   05/10/2012 5 months and 26 days     77310/13 11/11/2013 Nadia Florentina Racz 18/08/1960 Oradea Court of Appeal, 21/04/2010   14/01/2011   24/12/2013 2 years and 11 months and 11 days       77538/13 04/12/2013 S.C. Conspad Serv S.R.L.   Vaslui County Court, 07/06/2010   15/11/2010   pending More than 7 years and 3 months and 2 days     9315/14 16/12/2013 Grigore Tomescu 29/03/1954   represented by Codruța Tomescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Bucharest Court of Appeal, 24/11/2011   24/11/2011   28/09/2012 10 months and 5 days       46310/14 16/06/2014 Pavel Drumuș 11/02/1932   represented by Rodica Iacob, a lawyer practising in Constanța Constanța District Court, 16/09/2008   16/09/2008   pending More than 9 years and 5 months and 1 days     53515/14 17/07/2014 Alexandru Bleoancă 02/06/1979 Bacău Court of Appeal, 29/10/2008   03/08/2009   pending More than 8 years and 6 months and 12 days