CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .sB444016F { width:47.12pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA5A043E1 { width:91.41pt; 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 } .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. 10815/17 Iudith PALEACU against Romania and 5 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   November 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. 7632/18 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 1.     Preliminary issues 4.     As regards application no. 79826/17 the Court notes that the domestic judgment of 24 November 2008, which became final on 12 February 2009, did not include an outstanding obligation in favour of the applicant. The Court therefore considers that the complaints in application no. 79826/17 are 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. 5.     In respect of application no. 7632/18 the Government submitted that the complaints of the applicant company should be rejected for non ‑ observance of the six-month rule. According to the Government, in view of the fact that the applicant company was an unsecured creditor of a company under liquidation ( creditor chirografar ), the time-limit had started to run on 27 May 2015, the date when the recovery plan, which did not include payment to the unsecured creditors, was made available to the applicant. 6.     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 a judgment is duly acknowledged (see Sokolov and Others v.   Serbia (dec.), no. 30859/10, § 29, 14 January 2014). 7.     Turning to the above-mentioned case, the Court observes that the six ‑ month time-limit started to run on 27 May 2015, when the “objective impossibility” to enforce the outstanding judgment in respect of the applicant company became known to it. 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 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 8.     The Court further finds that it does not need to rule on the rest of the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints in the remaining applications are in any event inadmissible, as presented below. 2.     Remaining applications 9.     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 in the remaining applications. 10.     In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 10815/17, 22903/17 and 22908/17 the judgments in question were enforced within periods ranging from 5 months and 1 year and 8 months. In the particular circumstances of the cases, taking into account the conduct of the applicants and the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that these periods 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). 11.     In respect of application no. 33139/17 the Court notes that the outstanding judgments concern the payment of a remaining amount of 690   Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 150 euros (EUR)). In light of the circumstances of the present case and the applicant’s submissions, the Court concludes that the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the alleged violations of the Convention. 12.     The Court further observes that the problem of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of court judgments in Romania has been addressed on numerous occasions in its judgments (see, among many other authorities, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v.   Romania , nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014, and Ciocodeică v.   Romania , no. 27413/09, 16 January 2018). The examination of this application on the merits would not bring any new element to the Court’s existing case-law. The Court therefore concludes that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require an examination of the application on the merits (see Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, 14 June 2011). 13.     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.     Other alleged violations under well-established case-law 14.     In application no. 7632/18, the applicant company also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of its non ‑ enforcement complaint. 15.     The Court has found that the complaints of the applicant company under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule (see §§ 5-7 above). It follows that the complaint under Article 13 is also out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 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 20 December 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law     10815/17 06/03/2017 Iudith Paleacu 04/05/1928 Bucharest County Court, 07/10/2011   20/05/2016   17/01/2018 1 year and 7   months and 29 days         22903/17 16/03/2017 Gheorghe Arișanu 29/09/1940 Beclean District Court, 21/09/2016   21/09/2016   20/02/2017 5 months         22908/17 15/03/2017 Boris Barouhoglu 04/07/1922 Beclean District Court, 21/09/2016   21/09/2016   20/02/2017 5 months         33139/17 25/04/2017 Alexandru Vînătoru 17/03/1955,   represented by Gabriela Virginia Enea, a lawyer practising in Craiova Filiași District Court, 02/05/2007         Dolj County Court, 03/10/2007           Dolj County Court, 15/05/2012   03/10/2007         03/10/2007           15/05/2012   pending More than 10 years and 5 months and   21   days   pending More than 10 years and 5 months and   21   days     pending More than 5 years and 10 months and 9   days         79826/17 13/11/2017 Ionela Puia 25/02/1974 Ialomița County Court, 24/11/2008   12/02/2009   pending More than 9 years and 8 months and 14   days         7632/18 31/01/2018 Centrul de Cercetare pentru Materiale Macromoleculare și Membrane (CCMMM) S.A. 21/12/1992,   represented by Cristiana Vărășteanu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest   Vâlcea County Court, 26/06/2013   03/10/2013   pending More than 4 years and 6 months and 2   days   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments.