CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .s6748E7C { width:163.34pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B02B696 { width:159.34pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s85D7B88B { width:4.82%; 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 } .sB0550092 { width:15.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s49C2CA3B { width:20.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s547B8932 { width:15.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB71056D5 { width:28.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB5980E5B { width:4.82%; 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 } .sB09D8B77 { width:15.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s862A0ED6 { width:20.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1EE5102E { width:15.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s695C39EE { width:28.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13154/15 Corneliu Ion DONOIU against Romania and 3 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   December 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 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. 32879/17, the Court notes, as the Government submitted, that the enforcement of the judgments in the applicant’s favour started on 13 December 2017 (renovation work) and that the applicant received compensation for the delayed enforcement of the said judgments as awarded by the domestic courts. 5.     Comparing the compensation granted at domestic level in the present case with the amounts awarded by the Court for comparable delayed enforcement of domestic judgments in similar cases (see Trofim v. Romania (just satisfaction), no. 1193/08, § 15, 3 March 2015), the amount awarded to the applicant cannot be regarded as unreasonable. 6.     In view of the above, the Court notes that the national authorities have acknowledged and then afforded redress for the alleged breach of the Convention. It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be the victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 (see Shikunov v. Russia (dec.), no. 23211/04, § 18, 23 January 2018), and that this application is to be rejected pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 7.     The Court 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 8.     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. 9.     In particular, the Court notes that in application no. 13154/15 the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely he failed to submit a request to the authorities, as required by the domestic legislation in his case (see Li v. Russia , no.   38388/07, §§ 15-21, 24 April 2014). 10.     As regards applications nos. 41467/15 and 74092/17 the Court notes that the judgments in question were enforced within periods ranging from 10 months and 26 days to 4 years and 3 months. In the particular circumstances of the cases, taking into account the conduct of the applicants, the conduct of the authorities, as well as the high number of creditors in application no. 41467/15 (see Murărașu v. Romania , no.   45733/10, § 33, 10 November 2015), 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 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 17 January 2019.   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     13154/15 23/02/2015 Corneliu Ion Donoiu 09/10/1958 Bucharest Court of Appeal, 01/10/2014   01/10/2014   pending More than 4 years and 25 days       41467/15 10/08/2015 Dorin Ioniță 30/07/1959 Dâmbovița County Court, 22/01/2013 21/05/2013   01/09/2017 4 years and 3 months and 12 days       32879/17 25/04/2017 S.C. Rom Gemeni Turism S.R.L. 21/02/1992   represented by Grigore Tomescu, a   lawyer practising in Bucharest   Bucharest 5 th District Court, 11/05/2008   Bucharest 6 th District Court, 29/05/2014 04/06/2009     02/04/2015   pending More than 9 years and 4 months and 22 days   pending More than 3 years and 6 months and 24 days       74092/17 07/10/2017 Francisc Iuliu Szilágyi 26/09/1977   represented by Vlad-Ionuț Cigan, a   lawyer practising in Oradea   Oradea Court of Appeal, 10/04/2017   10/04/2017   07/03/2018 10 months and 26 days