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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s6748E7C { width:163.34pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B02B696 { width:159.34pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 21226/16 Marius-Constantin AGAFIȚEI 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 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 and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions 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 4.     In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour. 5.     In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 21226/16 and   55403/16, having regard to the particular context of the cases, namely the amounts to be paid and the domestic authorities’ assessment as to the impact of an immediate payment of the total amounts, the Court considers that the measures taken by the national authorities to pay the amounts due in several installments struck a fair balance between the applicants’ rights to see their judgments enforced within a reasonable time and the public interest at stake (see Dumitru and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 57265/08, §§ 45-52, 4 September 2012). 6.     In applications nos. 21696/16 and 58222/16, the Court notes that the judgments in question were enforced within periods not exceeding 1 year and 3 months. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicants as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that the periods in question are not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, §§ 9-10, 1 December 2016). 7.     In respect of application no. 52066/16 the Court observes that the state was ordered to launch a public tender with regard to a company which was under insolvency proceedings; something that is not possible according to domestic legislation. The Court therefore notes the existence of an objective impossibility to enforce the judgment. 8.     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. 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 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth / Date of registration   Relevant domestic judgment Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings     21226/16 08/04/2016 Marius-Constantin Agafiței 20/03/1975   Neamț County Court, 21/02/2012 13/07/2012   08/10/2015 3 years and 2 months and 26 days     21696/16 14/04/2016 Ion Iosif 19/07/1963   represented by Călin Ovidiu Pîrjan, a lawyer practising in Constanța   High Court of Cassation and Justice, 14/10/2015   14/10/2015   15/12/2016 1 year and 2 months and 2 days     52066/16 26/08/2016 S.C. Concept LTD S.R.L. 31/01/1992   represented by Gheorghe Eduard Manole   Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, 05/10/2005   05/10/2005   pending More than 12 years and 8 months and 23 days       55403/16 16/09/2016 S.C. Termosystem Services TSS S.R.L. 09/01/2003   represented by Florentina Tatiana Bratu, a lawyer practising in Constanța       Constanța County Court, 25/02/2015   04/11/2015   pending More than 2 years and 7 months and 24 days       58222/16 28/09/2016 Theodor-Iulian Lădar 15/10/1979   Cristina-Andreea Lădar 17/11/1976   represented by Andrei Sorin Munteanu, a lawyer practising in Constanța Constanța Court of Appeal, 09/09/2015   15/03/2016   29/06/2017 1 year and 3 months and 15 days