CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s47B51E7F { width:269.81pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   7 September 2010   THIRD SECTION Application no. 12899/06 by Liana RADU against Romania lodged on 18 March 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Liana Radu, is a Romanian national who was born on 20   September   1944 and lives in Moreni. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Following the applicant's failure to pay her water bills, in 2004 the local private company responsible for supplying water to the public stopped the water supply to the applicant. On 23 December 2004 the applicant instituted injunction proceedings against the above-mentioned company asking the court to issue a demand for the defendant to provide her with running water. By a final judgment of 28   December   2004 the Moreni District Court issued a demand for the defendant company to restart the supply of running water to the applicant. On 4 January 2005 the water-supply company lodged a civil action against the applicant in order to recover the outstanding debt. By a final judgment of 21 September 2005 the Dâmboviţa County Court demanded that the applicant pay the outstanding water bills, which amounted to 986,207   Romanian Lei. On an unspecified date, in the course of the proceedings for the compulsory enforcement of the 21   September   2005 judgment, the Moreni District Court ordered the automatic deduction of the debt from the applicant's pension. According to the applicant, the 28 December 2004 judgment of the Moreni District Court has never been enforced because the bailiffs have refused to set in motion the compulsory enforcement proceedings and therefore she has, to date, not had any running water. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning the execution of final judgments rendered in proceedings between private persons, namely, the Civil Procedure Code and Law no. 188/2000 regulating bailiffs' activities, are given in Topciov v. Romania ((dec.) no.   17369/02, 15   June   2006). COMPLAINTS 1.     Invoking article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 28 December 2004 constitutes a violation of her right to access to a court. 2.     Invoking in substance Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 28   December   2004 deprives her of running water and thus breaches her right to private life and home. The applicant complains that, owing to the lack of running water in the kitchen and bathroom, she lives in misery and her health has deteriorated because she is being forced to carry water every day from an outside source some distance away from her home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the failure to enforce the final judgment of 28 December 2004 of the Moreni District Court compatible with the applicant's right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, has there been a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her private life and her home owing to the authorities' failure to enforce the final judgment of 28   December   2004 which imposed an obligation to provide running water to the applicant?