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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s87F4CC3A { width:2.93pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19313/15 Gheorghe LOGHIN against Romania and 18 other applications (see list appended)   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 The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings as well as the complaint in one of the applications 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 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 criminal proceedings) 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. Those applicants who replied to the Government’s observations disagreed with the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Government also raised other preliminary objection s. However, the Court will not pursue these objections, as it considers that the complaints are in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below. 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). 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. 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 In application no. 20892/15, 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 In applications nos. 23486/15, 25146/15, 25450/15, 25461/15, 26404/15, 26691/15, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. 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. 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 and Article 13 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy)   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 Other complaints under well-established case-law     19313/15 29/07/2015 Gheorghe Loghin 29/03/1950 Ileana Stoica Bucharest 29/01/2004     29/10/2014   28/02/2013   11/02/2015   9 years, 4 months and 17 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   6593/2/2014       19957/15 16/04/2015 Gheorghe Bobu 25/02/1970     16/04/2009   21/10/2014   5 years, 6 months and 6 days   2 levels of jurisdiction   347/103/2013       20035/15 16/04/2015 Ghiorghe Borfălău 15/05/1954     16/04/2009   21/10/2014   5 years, 6 months and 6 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   347/103/2013       20892/15 21/04/2015 Radu Constantin Drăgan 20/09/1979 Horaţiu Petria Craiova 14/06/2007   28/04/2014   6 years, 10 months and 16 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   5247/63/2008 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.     22160/15 27/04/2015 Nicolae Busuioc 23/09/1973     15/02/2007   14/11/2014   7 years and 9 months 3 levels of jurisdiction   2490/2/2012       23241/15 04/05/2015 Florin Iulian Aldea 16/05/1966 Tiberius Nicu Bucharest 07/09/2005   07/10/2014   9 years, 1 month and 2 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   30041.01/3/2006*       23486/15 06/05/2015 Maricel Păcuraru 19/10/1964     09/10/2009   03/11/2014   5 years and 26 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   40408/3/2009*       24202/15 12/05/2015 Lucian-Cornel Toma 17/08/1979     15/02/2007   14/11/2014   7 years and 9 months 3 levels of jurisdiction   2490/2/2012       25146/15 15/05/2015 Vasile Gheorghe Toma 30/08/1972     15/07/2008   17/11/2014   6 years, 4 months and 4 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   3410/105/2009     25450/15 22/05/2015 Attila Gabor Marko 27/09/1968 Michel de Guillenchmidt Paris 05/03/2009   26/11/2014   5 years, 8 months and 23 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   13020/200/2011     25461/15 22/05/2015 Tamas Maroșan 22/05/1974 Michel de Guillenchmidt Paris 24/02/2009   26/11/2014   5 years and 9 months and 2 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   13020/200/2011     26404/15 27/05/2015 Cerasela Elena Rus 07/11/1966 Lucian Dumitrașcu Bucharest 07/02/2006   07/10/2014   8 years, 8 months and 1 day 2 levels of jurisdiction   30041.01/3/2006*     26682/15 20/05/2015 Gheorghe Suciu 11/05/1967     26/06/2009   21/10/2014   5 years, 3 months and 26 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   347/103/2013     26691/15 27/05/2015 Sorin Pantiș 15/11/1960 Lucian Dumitrașcu Bucharest 07/02/2006   07/10/2014   8 years, 8 months and 1 day 2 levels of jurisdiction   30041.01/3/2006*     26703/15 20/05/2015 Viorel Handaric 04/03/1973     16/04/2009   21/10/2014   5 years, 6 months and 6 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   347/103/2013     29489/15 09/06/2015 Ilarie-Mihai Rotaru 22/10/1972     15/02/2007   14/11/2014   7 years and 9 months 3 levels of jurisdiction   2490/2/2012     32807/15 26/06/2015 Cristian Gheorghe Severin 13/11/1975     15/02/2007   14/11/2014   7 years and 9 months 3 levels of jurisdiction   2490/2/2012     7185/16 02/02/2016 Adriana Veturia Moldovan 19/02/1954 Elena Mihaela Burzo Cluj-Napoca 23/06/2009   12/03/2015   5 years, 8 months and 19 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   666/33/2010     22306/16 19/04/2016 Ștefan Rădulescu 11/03/1956 Ovidiu Ion Budușan Bucharest 19/11/2004   31/10/2014   9 years, 11 months and 13 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   7534/303/2007****