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 } .s8BA86F1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s26EBDE6F { width:6.78%; 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 } .s3146EE6C { width:13.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9CD10C09 { width:16.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D1168BD { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDE9E4AF { width:13.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD6004886 { width:18.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEB980A2 { width:6.78%; 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 } .sB852CFEA { width:13.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3BE2F8C5 { width:16.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50398B03 { width:16.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB1B62479 { width:13.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB64D8D4F { width:18.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 74952/14 Dan Mihail NISIPEANU against Romania and 4 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 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 judgments as well as the complaint in application no. 63235/16 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 30279/15 the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 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 and Article   1 of the Protocol No.   1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments) 4.     In the present applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints are inadmissible in any event, as presented below. 5.     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. 6.     In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 74952/14, 75569/14, 30279/15 and 63613/16 the judgments in question were enforced within periods not exceeding 6 months and 8 days. 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.     As regards application no. 63235/16 the Court observes that the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely she failed to submit a request accompanied by relevant documents, as required by the domestic legislation in her case (see Li v. Russia, no. 38388/07, §§ 14-21, 24 April 2014). 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. C.     Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (length of the civil proceedings) 9.     In application no. 63235/16 the applicant also complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the civil proceedings finalised by the judgment of 15 April 2016 was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 10.     The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicant had not pursued an action for tortious liability. 11.     Having regard to the Court’s findings in the case of Brudan v.   Romania (no. 75717/14, §§ 86-89, 10 April 2018), the applicant in the current case is required to avail herself of the domestic remedy by pursuing the proceedings provided by Article 1349 of the Civil Code in force since 1   October 2011 (Articles 998-999 of the former Civil Code). 12.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. D.     Remaining complaint 13.     In application no. 30279/15, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings, which was not communicated to the Government. 14.     Like under the previous heading (paragraphs 9-12 above), and having regard to the Court’s findings in the case of Brudan v. Romania (cited above, §§ 86-89), the applicants in the current case are also required to avail themselves of the domestic remedy by pursuing the proceedings provided by Article 1349 of the Civil Code in force since 1 October 2011 (Articles 998-999 of the former Civil Code). 15.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 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 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     74952/14 22/11/2014 Dan Mihail Nisipeanu 22/05/1961   represented by Simona Bunghez, a lawyer practising in Brașov Brașov County Court, 03/12/2013   26/05/2014   08/07/2014 1 month and 13 days         75569/14 22/11/2014 Nicolae Parate 27/01/1965   represented by Simona Bunghez, a lawyer practising in Brașov Brașov County Court, 03/12/2013   26/05/2014   08/07/2014 1 month and 13 days         30279/15 15/06/2015 (3 applicants) Eugenia Pleşa 22/10/1949   Dana Gabriela Pleșa 18/09/1977   Cristina Adriana Pleșa 30/03/1980   represented by Anelis-Vanina Istrătescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Bucharest District Court, 28/05/2014   27/01/2015   04/06/2015 4 months and 6 days           63235/16 12/10/2016 Niculina Lovin 21/09/1957   represented by Lorena-Elena Stănescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Bucharest County Court, 15/04/2016   15/04/2016   pending More than 2 years and 3 months and 3 days   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings, from 06/04/2009 until 15/04/2016, a total of 7 years and 11 days for 2 levels of jurisdiction     63613/16 24/10/2016 Gheorghe Radu 14/02/1966   represented by Marius-Cătălin Preduţ, a lawyer practising in Bucharest Bucharest Court of Appeal, 07/06/2016   07/06/2016   14/12/2016 6 months and 8 days