CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BA86F1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s75A32C27 { 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 } .s2840CEAF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24217/06 Panaghia Paula CONSTANTIN and Iosif Andrei CONSTANTIN against Romania and 5 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7   June   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 complaints in applications nos. 49811/10 and 77768/14 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 24217/06 and 49811/10 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) 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 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. 24217/06 and 25770/15, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the final judgments. While the Court notes that the judgments in their favour were enforced within 10 years for application no.   24217/06 and remains unenforced for application no. 25770/15, this was 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). 7.     The Court further 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 lodge an objection to the enforcement proceedings (application no.   29715/08); failing to pursue the enforcement proceedings (application no.   49811/10); failing to adequately substantiate the request to demolish the debtors constructions at their expense (application no. 17425/15) (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005). 8.     As regards application no. 77768/14, the Court considers 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 a period of 1 year and 4 months. 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 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 to the Convention (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). 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. C.     Other alleged violations under well-established case-law 10.     In applications nos. 49811/10 and 77768/14, the applicants also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of their non-enforcement complaints. 11.     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). 12.     The Court has found that the applicants’ complaints under Article   6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are manifestly ill-founded. It follows that the applicants do not have an arguable claim and Article 13 is therefore not applicable to their cases. 13.     Consequently, these complaints are also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. D.     Remaining complaints 14.     In applications nos. 24217/06 and 49811/10 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 15.     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. 16.     It follows that these parts 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 28 June 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 judgment Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Other complaints under well-established case-law     24217/06 12/06/2006 Panaghia Paula Constantin 20/06/1966   Iosif Andrei Constantin 03/08/1990   represented by Nicoleta Tatiana Popescu, a   lawyer practising in Bucharest. Buftea District Court, 25/02/2003   11/12/2003   04/12/2013 9 years and 11 months and 24   days       29715/08 12/06/2008 Eugeniu Șovărel 30/08/1948 Bucharest Court of Appeal, 04/02/1998   04/02/1998   pending More than 20 years and 3   months and 11 days         49811/10 19/07/2010 (3 applicants) Leon Cazacu 20/11/1941   Gheorghe Găină 04/06/1968   Georgeta Cioplean 17/01/1934 Botoșani County Court, 12/11/2009   12/11/2009   pending More than 8 years and 6   months and 11 days   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments       77768/14 16/12/2013 Christian Georg Toffler 25/02/1962 Bucharest District Court, 24/02/2012   15/01/2013   21/05/2014 1 year and 4 months and 7 days   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments     17425/15 31/03/2015 Radu Ene 21/11/1946 Slatina District Court, 15/12/2010   29/11/2011   pending More than 6 years and 5   months and 17 days         25770/15 23/05/2015 Gabriel-Cornel Roșioru 13/01/1973 Pitești District Court, 10/12/2010   10/12/2010   pending More than 7 years and 5   months and 6 days