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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17419/15 Florin MANOLIȚĂ against Romania and 11 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 as well as the complaint in application no. 57699/15 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). Some 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 (excessive length of civil proceedings) 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. C.     Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention 9.     In application no. 57699/15 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. Given that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, no issue arises in relation to the applicant’s complaint under Article 13. It follows that it is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. D.     Remaining complaints 10.     In applications nos.   17419/15 and 56999/15 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 11.     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. 12.     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 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 / Date of registration   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Domestic court file number Other complaints under well-established case-law     17419/15 02/04/2015 Florin Manoliță 13/02/1982 Daniela Roxana Salaoru, Bucharest 19/12/2007   28/05/2014   6 years and 5 months and 10 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   46299/3/2007*         55080/15 27/10/2015 Ioana Macamete 07/01/1937 Sanda Cornelia Fulga, Craiova 30/08/2006   22/04/2015   8 years and 7 months and 24 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   945/1/2015         56341/15 23/12/2015 Emil Şandor 18/11/1954     13/04/2010   04/05/2015   5 years and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   12325/271/2012         56999/15 16/09/2015 Lucia-Constanța Nicolescu 01/01/1934   Gheorghe-Adrian Şulţ 24/02/1955 Alina-Veronica Cârnaru, Bucharest 12/03/2008   16/03/2015   7 years and 5 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   7202/306/2009       57699/15 09/11/2015 Household Lența Pașcu 06/10/1952   Neculai Pașcu 04/12/1948   Gabriela Veronica Cocină, Iași 29/01/2008   14/05/2015   7 years and 3 months and 16 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   1399/245/2008 Art. 13 – Lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings.     59809/15 26/11/2015 Flavius-Nicolae Jurcău 17/09/1971     20/07/2010   30/03/2015   4 years and 8 months and 11 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   1953/2/2013         61735/15 08/12/2015 Marian Cristil 25/05/1962 Otilia-Monalisa Stoica, Bucharest 02/09/2003   12/04/2017   13 years and 7 months and 11 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   3100/1748/2010*         509/16 22/12/2015 Household Gheorghe Onița 07/10/1939 Floare Onița 01/02/1946 Árpád Ștefan Kolozsi, Oradea 18/04/2006   12/04/2017   10 years and 11 months and 26 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   2279/111/2014         7022/16 29/01/2016 Robert Kovacs 25/05/1978     17/06/2009   22/09/2015   6 years and 3 months and 6   days 3 levels of jurisdiction   5832/296/2009           12631/16 18/02/2016 Gheorghe Vida 06/01/1958 Călin Gheorghe Dragomir, Satu Mare 23/12/2008   25/09/2015   6 years and 9 months and 3   days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1566/266/2008*       20370/16 08/04/2016 Virgil Radu 31/08/1951     19/06/2007   09/10/2015   8 years and 3 months and 21 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   5522/2/2015       44048/16 18/07/2016 Household Romulus-Marian Paralescu 18/07/1988 Ioana-Alina Paralescu 02/12/1984     02/09/2010   10/03/2016   5 years and 6 months and 9   days 2 levels of jurisdiction   7778/221/2010*