CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 septembre 2019

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6BBFB6F7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 69123/14 and 3774/15 Gelu DRAGOMIR against Romania and George Alexandru POPESCU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26   September 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, 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 The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW 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. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 In the present applications, 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 particular, the Court notes that in application no. 69123/14 the final judgment of 15 September 2011 of the Galați County Court ordered the applicant’s employer to communicate to him a decision and to pay him salary rights according to that decision. It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the decision in question had in fact been communicated to the applicant on 18 May 2011, even before the aforementioned judgment was issued. In addition, the salary rights have been paid to the applicant without any delay, on a monthly basis, from the moment of the adoption of the above-mentioned decision. In view of the above, the Court concludes that there was in fact no excessive enforcement period and, consequently, there is no arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, §§   9-10, 1   December 2016). As regards application no. 3774/15, the Court firstly notes that in view of the legal statute of the debtor, the National Institute for Research and Development for Oil Equipment Ploiești, more specifically the extensive prerogatives given by its statute, the nature of its activities and its high degree of institutional and operational independence from the political authorities, it shall be considered a private debtor for the purposes of Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Samsonov v. Russia (dec.), no. 2880/10, § 74, 16 September 2014). Moreover, while it should be noted that the judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced, this was on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtor, a private party, does not have any assets (see Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006). In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications 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 October 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   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 decisions) 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 Domestic order     69123/14 10/10/2014 Gelu Dragomir 29/03/1970 Galați County Court, 15/09/2011   15/09/2011   18/05/2011 None To communicate to the applicant a decision and to pay salary rights in accordance with that decision     3774/15 09/01/2015 George Alexandru Popescu 11/11/1950 Prahova County Court, 27/03/2012   27/03/2012   pending More than 6 years and 6 months and 29   days   To pay to the applicant salary rights