FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 74952/14 Dan Mihail NISIPEANU against Romania and 4 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 October 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 applicant s 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. 63235/16 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) . In application no. 30279/15 the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention .

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 )

4 . In the present applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints are inadmissible in any event, as presented below.

5 . 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.

6 . In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 74952/14, 75569/14, 30279/15 and 63613/16 the judgments in question were enforced within periods not exceeding 6 months and 8 days. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicants as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that the periods in question 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).

7 . As regards application no. 63235/16 the Court observes that the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely she failed to submit a request accompanied by relevant documents, as required by the domestic legislation in her case (see Li v. Russia, no. 38388/07, §§ 14-21, 24 April 2014).

8 . 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. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (length of the civil proceedings)

9 . In application no. 63235/16 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 15 April 2016 was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

10 . 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.

11 . 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 herself 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).

12 . 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.

D. Remaining complaint

13 . In application no. 30279/15, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings, which was not communicated to the Government.

14 . Like under the previous heading (paragraphs 9 -1 2 above), and having regard to the Court ’ s findings in the case of Brudan v. Romania (cited above, §§ 86-89), the applicants in the current case are also required to avail themselves 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).

15 . 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 8 November 2018 .

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 judgment

Start date of non-enforcement period

End date of non-enforcement period

Length of enforcement proceedings

Other complaints under well-established case-law

74952/14

22/11/2014

Dan Mihail Nisipeanu

22/05/1961

represented by Simona Bunghez, a lawyer practising in Bra șov

Brașov County Court, 03/12/2013

26/05/2014

08/07/2014

1 month and 13 days

75569/14

22/11/2014

Nicolae Parate

27/01/1965

represented by Simona Bunghez, a lawyer practising in Bra șov

Brașov County Court, 03/12/2013

26/05/2014

08/07/2014

1 month and 13 days

30279/15

15/06/2015

(3 applicants)

Eugenia PleÅŸa

22/10/1949

Dana Gabriela Pleșa

18/09/1977

Cristina Adriana Pleșa

30/03/1980

represented by Anelis-Vanina Istrătescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest

Bucharest District Court, 28/05/2014

27/01/2015

04/06/2015

4 months and 6 days

63235/16

12/10/2016

Niculina Lovin

21/09/1957

represented by Lorena-Elena Stănescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest

Bucharest County Court, 15/04/2016

15/04/2016

pending

More than 2 years and 3 months and 3 days

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of civil proceedings, from 06/04/2009 until 15/04/2016, a total of 7 years and 11 days for 2 levels of jurisdiction

63613/16

24/10/2016

Gheorghe Radu

14/02/1966

represented by Marius-Cătălin Preduţ, a lawyer practising in

Bucharest

Bucharest Court of Appeal, 07/06/2016

07/06/2016

14/12/2016

6 months and 8 days