FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36412/15 Ana-Maria TOADER and O thers 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 application s 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 applicant s ,

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. H aving 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 application s 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 NeamÈ› 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.