CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 avril 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sF32B1133 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside: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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8E5A2C6E { width:3.88%; 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 } .sA508736 { width:13.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBDAEE9AD { width:26.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6D86B9 { width:15.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE39A2A97 { width:12.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3DA62232 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9E0B9211 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6923E2BB { width:3.88%; 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 } .s1F6E3E1B { width:13.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE01C04F { width:26.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA080519D { width:15.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79BDA5DD { width:12.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1989B891 { width:14.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7A25C493 { width:13.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24134/05 Neculai PRUTEANU and Others against Romania and 10 other applications (see list appended) 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 as well as the complaint in application no. 46758/14 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, 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 applications nos. 46289/13 and 58851/13, with regard to the obligations established by the judgments of 1 June 2006, 23 February 2000 and 13   March 2000 respectively, the Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six ‑ month rule. According to the Government, the time-limit had started to run from 9 November 2012, 18 March 2005 and 30 July 2012, respectively, the dates when the judgments had been enforced. 5.     The applicants disagreed. 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 cases, the Court observes that the six-month time-limit had started to run from 9 November 2012, when the judgment of 1 June 2006 was enforced (as regards application no.   46289/13) and from 18 March 2005 and 30 July 2012, respectively (as regards application no. 58851/13, in respect of the obligations established by the judgments of 23 February 2000 and 13 March 2000). 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 and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. 8 .     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 in any event inadmissible for the reasons presented below. 2.     Remaining applications 9.     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 in the remaining applications. 10.     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 pursue the enforcement proceedings and preventing them from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 24134/05 and 36469/13); failing to exhaust the proceedings on changing the penalties for delay into compensatory damages (application no. 58851/13, in respect of the obligation established by judgment of 28 September 1998); failing to institute any proceedings for a period of more than three years and failing to pursue the criminal proceedings instituted against the debtor (application no.   80860/13); failing to register on the creditors’ ranking table in insolvency proceedings (application no. 22579/14); failing to guard several goods, to designate a guardian or to cover fees for a guardian (application no.   33127/14) (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no.   33273/03, 22   March 2005). 11.     In respect of applications nos. 56537/13 and 70781/13 (with regard to the judgment of 10 May 2013), 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). 12.     As regards applications nos. 70781/13 (in respect of the judgment of 2   February 2012) and 46758/14, 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 7 months to 9 years and 5 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). 13.     As regards application no. 1124/14, the Court notes that the delay in the enforcement was the result of repeated challenges submitted by the debtors and followed by suspensions allowed by the domestic courts. The Court therefore concludes that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant company in the process of enforcement but the judgment in favour of the applicant company remained unenforced due to the lack of cooperation of third parties (see Poenaru v. Romania (dec.), no. 31752/04, §§ 40-44, 15 December 2009). 14.     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 15.     In application no. 46758/14, the applicant also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of his non ‑ enforcement complaint. 16.     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). 17.     The Court has found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are manifestly ill ‑ founded. It follows that the applicant does not have an arguable claim and Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case. 18.     Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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 judgments) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth/Date of registration   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     24134/05 22/06/2005 (3 applicants) Neculai Pruteanu 04/08/1940   Virginia Iordache 21/10/1934   Anica Lupescu 05/06/1925 Pașcani District Court, 21/07/1992   03/02/1993   pending More than 25 years and 12 days         36469/13 30/12/2013 Aneta Maftei 14/07/1953   represented by Paul Rusu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Iași County Court, 21/06/2010 28/01/2011   18/02/2012 1 year and 22 days       46289/13 15/07/2013 Damian Lupescu 09/11/1950 Bucharest County Court, 01/06/2006   01/06/2006   09/11/2012 6 years and 5 months and 9 days         56537/13 27/08/2013 Aurel Nicolae Lupu 15/09/1947 Alba Iulia County Court, 11/03/2010     27/09/2010   pending More than 7 years and 4 months and 19 days         58851/13 06/09/2013 (4 applicants) Ioan Teodor Pînzaru 01/12/1955   Bogdan Ștefan Pînzaru 25/08/1993   Diana-Ioana Ricman 16/02/1979   Rodica Tatiana Pînzaru 16/12/1957   represented by Cristian Theodor Ricman, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Constanța Court of Appeal, 28/09/1998       Constanța County Court, 23/02/2000       Constanța County Court, 13/03/2000   28/09/1998         28/02/2000         13/03/2000   pending More than 19 years and 4 months and 18 days     18/03/2005 5 years and 19 days       30/07/2012 12 years and 4 months and 18 days         70781/13 11/11/2013 Marchian Nica 03/04/1985 Giurgiu County Court, 13/07/2011     Iași County Court, 05/11/2012   02/02/2012       10/05/2013   12/09/2012 7 months and 11 days     pending More than 4 years and 9 months and 5 days       80860/13 15/12/2013 Ioan Șoldu 04/04/1925 Giurgiu County Court, 17/02/2003   30/03/2004   pending More than 13 years and 10 months and 16 days         1124/14 17/12/2013 S.C. 90’S Comp Impex S.R.L.   represented by Coreli Insolv Ipurl, a company located in Săcele   Court of Commercial Arbitration - Sibiu Chamber of Commerce and Industry, 10/04/2003   15/05/2003   pending More than 14 years and 9 months         22579/14 14/03/2014 Mihai-Florin Guran 05/08/1967 Gorj County Court, 05/05/2011   20/02/2013   pending More than 4 years and 11 months and 26 days       33127/14 09/07/2014 Nistor Isai Faur 14/02/1966 Arad District Court, 09/02/2012   09/02/2012   pending More than 6 years and 6 days       46758/14 09/09/2014 Nistor Isai Faur 14/02/1966 Arad County Court, 28/03/2007   28/03/2007   24/08/2016 9 years and 4 months and 28 days   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.