CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .sF3AF4D98 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:14pt } .s4A779EC2 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDDFF39D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .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 } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9CCA4500 { height:38.8pt } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 15281/15 Virgil BĂRBUIA against Romania and 4 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, 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 some of the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. 2.     The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings 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 4.     The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicants had not pursued an action for tortious liability. 5.     Those applicants who replied to the Government’s observations disagreed with the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 6.     In the case of Brudan v. Romania (no. 75717/14, § 68, 10   April   2018), the Court held that following its judgment in the case of Vlad and Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013), the action for tortious liability had been included by the domestic courts as an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of proceedings, before both criminal and civil courts in Romania. In Brudan (cited above), the Court also found that the High Court for Cassation and Justice’s judgment of 30 January 2014, which consolidated the domestic case-law on actions for tortious liability, had acquired a sufficient level of certainty on 22 March 2015. It therefore concluded that this remedy must be exhausted, as of that date, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Brudan , cited above, § 88). 7.     The present applications were all lodged with the Court after 22   March 2015 (see the appended table) and the applicants were therefore required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail themselves of this domestic remedy (see Brudan , cited above, § 89). It appears from the case files that the applicants have not lodged actions for tortious liability before the domestic courts, or have failed to provide the Court with a final decision rendered by the competent court in such proceedings. 8.     Accordingly, the Government’s objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be upheld. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 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 4 October 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court file number     15281/15 17/04/2015 Virgil Bărbuia 24/04/1949     08/10/2008   13/11/2014   6 year(s) and 1 month(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   15075/3/2010     22657/15 02/06/2015 Gheorghe Stoia 23/04/1954 Simona Dobrin, Sibiu 29/03/2007   13/01/2015   7 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 16 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   10612/1/2010**     37494/15 27/08/2015 (4 applicants) Household Maria Boloș 21/04/1961   Nicoleta-Bianca Boloș 11/12/1983   Felicia-Alexandra Boloș-Ciocan 14/10/1985   Felician Boloş 06/07/1957     16/06/2003   10/02/2015   11 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 26 day(s)   3 level(s) of jurisdiction   3124/83/2003     41499/15 29/07/2015 Gheorghe Colțea 22/03/1948     06/05/2003   05/02/2015   11 year(s) and 9 month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   1296/197/2012     44159/15 31/08/2015 Vasile Rujei 15/08/1938   Ioan-Manasie Rujei 17/11/1936 Maria Camelia Țațu, Timișoara 24/08/2009   02/03/2015   5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   5201/30/2009**