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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; 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 } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s56D85D7A { height:28.25pt } .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 } .s117F6D70 { height:43.05pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 69442/14 Ion CÂRSTEA against Romania and 4 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 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 complaint in application no. 55872/15 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, 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 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments) 1.     Application no. 35234/15 4 .     The Government raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicant’s complaints should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae . In this connection they pointed out that the judgment of 19   December 2013 did not include any outstanding obligation in favour of the applicant. 5.     The applicant did not reply to the Government’s arguments. 6 .     In light of all the evidence before it, and in particular noting that the judgment of 19 December 2013 did not include any obligation in favour of the applicant which had not been enforced already, the Court considers that the Government’s objection as regards the applicant’s lack of victim status must be upheld. It follows that this application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 2.     Applications nos. 55872/15 and 14931/16 7 .     The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six-month rule. According to the Government, the time-limit had started to run from 13 October 2014 and 8   February 2011, respectively, the dates when the judgments had been fully enforced. 8.     The applicants disagreed without providing any valid argument to oppose to the Government’s preliminary objection. 9.     The Court reiterates that in cases involving the execution of a final court judgment a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant judgment or when an “objective impossibility” to enforce such judgment is duly acknowledged (see Sokolov and Others v.   Serbia (dec.), no. 30859/10, § 29, 14 January 2014). 10 .     Turning to the above-mentioned cases, the Court observes that the six-month time-limit had started to run respectively from 13 October 2014, when the judgment of 16 September 2014 was enforced, and from 8   February 2011, when the judgment of 24 March 2010 was enforced. The Court therefore agrees with the Government and finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §   4 of the Convention. 3.     Applications nos. 69442/14 and 47266/15 11.     The Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government in the two remaining applications, because they are in any event inadmissible for the reasons presented below. 12.     In respect of application no. 69442/14, having examined all the material before it, 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 thirty days. Taking into account the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that this period is 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). 13.     As regards application no. 47266/15 the Court observes that the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely he failed to submit a request for payment, as required by the domestic legislation in his case (see Li v. Russia, no. 38388/07, §§ 14-21, 24 April 2014). 14.     In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. C.     Other alleged violations under well-established case-law 15.     In application no. 55872/15, the applicant also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of his non ‑ enforcement complaint. 16.     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 , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131). Since the Court has found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are manifestly ill ‑ founded, it follows that the applicant does not have an arguable claim and that Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case. 17.     Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) 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   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     69442/14 03/10/2014 Ion Cârstea 07/11/1949 Timiș County Court, 15/12/2013   12/03/2014   10/04/2014 30 days         35234/15 07/07/2015 Emilian Barbu 04/04/1969 Bucharest Court of Appeal, 19/12/2013   19/12/2013   pending More than 4 years and 6 months and 9 days       47266/15 17/09/2015 Nicolae-Moise Mordășan 28/07/1976 Sibiu County Court, 11/04/2013   17/10/2013   pending More than 4 years and 8 months and 10 days         55872/15 03/11/2015 Veta Păsculescu 24/10/1966 Craiova Court of Appeal, 16/09/2014   16/09/2014   13/10/2014 28 days   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions     14931/16 10/03/2016 Erszebet Ilona Csutak Nagy 15/02/1961 Cluj Court of Appeal, 24/03/2010   24/01/2011   08/02/2011 16 days