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 } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36412/15 Ana-Maria TOADER and Others against Romania and 4 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 as well as the complaint in application no. 18970/17 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings 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.     Preliminary issues 4.     As regards application no. 59401/16 the Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae . They pointed out that the outstanding judgment of 31 May 2004 was enforced on 12 October 2004. 5.     In light of the evidence submitted to it, the Court notes that the judgment was indeed enforced on 12 October 2004 and, hence, the Government’s preliminary objection in respect of the applicant’s lack of legal standing must be upheld. It follows that application no. 59401/16 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. 6.     The Court further considers 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 7.     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. 8.     In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 36412/15, 13744/16, 58883/16 and 18970/17 in respect of the financial order, the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the final judgments. While the Court notes that the judgments in their favour remain unenforced, this was on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtors, private parties, did not have any assets (see Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006). As regards application no. 18970/17, in respect of the obligation on behalf of a private company to allow the applicant’s access to a plot of land, the Court notes that the applicant failed to make appropriate use of the available domestic legal avenues and to comply with all the procedural and substantial requirements of the domestic law, as he failed to institute enforcement proceedings (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005). 9.     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.     Remaining complaints 10.     In application no. 18970/17 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 29 September 2016 was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 11.     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. 12.     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 himself 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). 13.     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 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   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Other complaints under well-established case-law     36412/15 16/07/2015 (4 applicants) Ana-Maria Toader 14/08/1986 Daniela Coldea 13/04/1988 Vasile Coldea 05/10/1961 Elena Coldea 28/02/1962   represented by Radu Liviu Chiriţă, a   lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca     Cluj Court of Appeal, 08/09/2011   08/09/2011   pending More than 4 years and 7   months and 15 days         13744/16 04/03/2016 Gheorghe Muraru 14/08/1954 Piatra Neamț District Court, 30/11/2014   30/11/2014   pending More than 3 years and 11   months and 22 days           58883/16 12/10/2016 Nicușor Nelepcu 15/03/1954 Corabia District Court, 24/04/2012   24/04/2012   pending More than 4 years and 9   months and 14 days           59401/16 06/10/2016 Valentina Radocea 16/07/1941   represented by Adrian Vasiliu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest   Bucharest Court of Appeal, 31/05/2004   31/05/2004   12/10/2004 4 months and 13 days         18970/17 02/03/2017 Vasile Larion 09/07/1955 Suceava County Court, 01/04/2014   29/09/2016   pending More than 2 years and 1   month and 24 days   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of the civil proceedings: 9 years, 1 month, 29 days, for three levels of jurisdiction.