CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 15446/15 Nicoleta BORDEI against Romania and 19 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   October 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 civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In application no.   46212/15, the applicant 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 civil 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. 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.     Remaining complaints In application no. 46212/15, the applicant also raised other complaints under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. The Court notes that the applicant simply cites the above provisions of the Convention and its Protocol without explaining in what way they have been breached. Furthermore, neither the factual nor the legal arguments are evident from the facts of the case (see Baillard v. France (dec.), no.   6032/04, 25 September 2008). It follows that this part of application no. 46212/15 is 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 8 November 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     15446/15 23/03/2015 Nicoleta Bordei 29/07/1966 Monica-Ana-Georgiana Dima Bucharest 28/04/2010   25/11/2014   4 years, 6 months and 29 days 1 level of jurisdiction   31552/302/2014     16750/15 02/04/2015 Oilfield Exploration Business Solutions S.A. 20/11/2001 Ovidiu Ion Budușan Bucharest 20/04/2007   07/10/2014   7 years, 5 months and 20 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   30041.01/3/2006*     17206/15 01/04/2015 Vasile Cioclu 01/01/1965     22/11/2006   20/10/2014   7 years, 10 months and 29 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   22852/245/2006     17488/15 30/03/2015 Elisabeta Nemeth 11/12/1953     31/05/2007   29/09/2014   7 years, 4 months and 1 day   3 levels of jurisdiction   236/1/2014     18223/15 24/03/2015 Ion Florea 05/06/1950 Maria Florea 10/07/1953       04/12/2006   14/10/2014   7 years, 10 months and 12 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   1045/191/2006         18553/15 30/03/2015 Natalia Mihai 23/02/1958     25/10/2005   10/12/2015   10 years, 1 month and 17 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   213/318/2005**     19871/15 09/04/2015 Oana-Liliana Fifea 01/06/1975 Victoria Patit Bucharest 20/12/2007   16/10/2014   6 years, 9 months and 28 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   2877/2/2014     21435/15 28/04/2015 Dumitru Răduță 11/10/1945 Alexandra Cristina Jipa Bucharest 08/01/2008   29/10/2014   6 years, 9 months and 22 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   14569/94/2012     21543/15 23/04/2015 Teodor Lazăr 11/03/1967 Adrian Stancu Oradea 24/08/2009   08/10/2014   5 years, 1 month and 15 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   11628/271/2012   24376/15 11/05/2015 S.C. Mch International Business S.R.L. 05/04/2011 Mariana Ștefan Bucharest 24/04/2008   16/01/2015   6 years, 8 months and 24 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   15809./3/2008*   24480/15 12/05/2015 Cornel Popescu 02/03/1955 Marius-Viorel Nedela Reșița 20/03/2006   20/06/2012   12/04/2012   13/11/2014   8 years, 5 months and 18 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   1605.1/290/2006*   24623/15 12/05/2015 Liana-Corina Alexan 11/11/1969     27/08/2009   27/10/2014   5 years, 2 months and 1 day 2 levels of jurisdiction   19747/271/2011*   25473/15 21/05/2015 S.C. Lardis & Partners S.R.L. 27/10/1999 Dionyssios Lardis Limassol 01/10/2003   17/02/2015   11 years, 4 months and 20 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   36720/3/2012   25920/15 22/05/2015 Rebecca Maria Moldoveanu 28/10/2010 Nicoleta Tatiana Popescu Bucharest 21/06/2012   02/12/2014   2 years, 5 months and 12 days 1 level of jurisdiction   20807/4/2014   26380/15 28/05/2015 Teodor Alin Tău 13/06/1969     27/02/2008   02/12/2014   6 years, 9 months and 6 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   36049/215/2010*   32656/15 18/06/2015 Roquette Romania S.A. 09/05/1991 Teodora Koletsis Bucharest 07/08/2003   04/12/2014   11 years and 4 months 2 levels of jurisdiction   669/1752/2014   33117/15 30/06/2015 Victor Raoul Dan Diamandescu 28/08/1936     20/05/2010   02/04/2015   4 years, 10 months and 14 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   647/2/2015   34665/15 24/08/2015 Gheorghe Bârligeanu 05/09/1949     09/04/2010   26/05/2015   5 years, 1 month and 17 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   3427/315/2010**   35007/15 08/07/2015 Constantin Dragomirescu 13/02/1956 Dragoş-Ioan Mateescu Piteşti 25/05/2010   11/12/2014   4 years, 6 months and 18 days 2 levels of jurisdiction   1122/214/2010*   46212/15 11/09/2015 Dicran-Vahacn Martaian 25/05/1936     19/12/2003   13/03/2015   11 years, 2 months and 26 days 3 levels of jurisdiction   23/119/2003*