Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

IORDACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Doc ref: 5735/15, 19791/15, 19793/15, 20720/15, 21070/15, 22393/15, 23221/15, 23980/15, 28225/15, 31246/15, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-186902

Document date: September 13, 2018

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 2

IORDACHE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Doc ref: 5735/15, 19791/15, 19793/15, 20720/15, 21070/15, 22393/15, 23221/15, 23980/15, 28225/15, 31246/15, 3... • ECHR ID: 001-186902

Document date: September 13, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5735/15 Florică IORDACHE against Romania and 17 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 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 some of 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 concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings as well as the complaints in applications nos. 20720/15 and 22393/15 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions 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 ( excessive length of criminal proceedings )

4. The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicants had not pursued an action for tortious liability.

5. Those applicants who replied to the Government ’ s observations disagreed with the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

6. The Government also raised other preliminary objections. However , the Court will not pursue these objections, as it considers that the complaints are in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

7. In the case of Brudan v. Romania (no. 75717/14, § 68, 10 April 2018), the Court held that following its judgment in the case of Vlad and Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013), the action for tortious liability had been included by the domestic courts as an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of proceedings, before both criminal and civil courts in Romania. In Brudan ( cited above), the Court also found that the High Court for Cassation and Justice ’ s judgment of 30 January 2014, which consolidated the domestic case-law on actions for tortious liability, had acquired a sufficient level of certainty on 22 March 2015. It therefore concluded that this remedy must be exhausted, as of that da te, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Brudan , cited above, § 88).

8. The present applications were all lodged with the Court after 22 March 2015 (see the appended table) and the applicants were therefore required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail themselves of this domestic remedy (see Brudan , cited above, § 89). It appears from the case files that the applicants have not lodged actions for tortious liability before the domestic courts, or have failed to provide the Court with a final decision rendered by the competent court in such proceedings.

9. Accordingly, the Government ’ s objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be upheld. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

C. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention

10. In applications nos. 20720/15 and 22393/15, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. Given that the applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention have been rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, no issue arises in relation to the applicants ’ complaints under Article 13. It follows that they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

D. Remaining complaints

11. In applications nos. 21070/15, 23221/15, 31263/15, 38876/15, 42268/15 and 44908/15 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

12. The Court has examined the application s listed in the appended table and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

13. It follows that this part of the applications must be reje cted in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the application s inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018 .

Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Other complaints under well-established case-law

5735/15

08/04/2015

Florică Iordache

12/01/1966

Ileana Stoica, Bucharest

21/02/2001

28/02/2013

12 years and

8 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

19791/15

16/04/2015

Gheorghe ÈšepeÈ™-Piser

04/08/1967

10/04/2009

21/10/2014

5 years and 6 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

19793/15

16/04/2015

Ioan DoboÈ™

10/04/1963

10/04/2009

21/10/2014

5 years and 6 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

20720/15

21/04/2015

Felician Cotyso Străuț

04/04/1967

Teodora Cătălina Godîncă-Herlea, Cluj-Napoca

09/09/2002

21/10/2014

12 years and 1 month and 13 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law

21070/15

21/04/2015

Ioan Anton Dogaru

15/06/1953

25/01/2007

21/10/2014

7 years and 8 months and 27 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

22393/15

21/04/2015

Tudor-Valeriu Herlea

16/05/1956

Teodora Cătălina Godîncă-Herlea, Cluj-Napoca

09/09/2002

21/10/2014

12 years and 1 month and 13 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law

23221/15

07/05/2015

Laurian Iulian LucaÈ™

02/05/1974

Radu Liviu Chiriţă,

Cluj-Napoca

26/05/2005

06/11/2014

9 years and 5 months and 12 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

23980/15

14/05/2015

Mihai Zerkula

05/08/1968

31/05/2005

17/12/2014

9 years and 6 months and 18 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

28225/15

02/06/2015

Flavius - Leonard Ioniță

26/01/1977

01/09/2006

12/06/2014

7 years and 9 months and 12 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

31246/15

17/06/2015

Constantin Buga

07/03/1986

George Bogdan Pocovnicu,

Bacău

19/07/2007

19/12/2014

7 years and 5 months and 1 day

2 levels of jurisdiction

31263/15

13/06/2015

Ciprian State HidiÅŸan

30/03/1974

27/09/2002

17/12/2014

12 years and 2 months and 21 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

31292/15

19/06/2015

Aurel Mailat

25/02/1986

George Bogdan Pocovnicu,

Bacău

19/07/2007

19/12/2014

7 years and 5 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

38876/15

03/09/2015

Marius-Sebastian Leontiuc

03/07/1979

Laura Mirela Leontiuc,

Timi È™ oara

16/08/2008

11/03/2015

6 years and 6 months and 24 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

42268/15

12/08/2015

Sorin Corpodean

29/03/1965

16/04/2009

04/02/2015

5 years and 9 months and 20 days

2 levels of jurisdiction

43016/15

17/08/2015

Bogdan Neacșu

11/05/1977

Maria Emanuela Gruia,

Bucharest

10/11/2009

20/02/2015

5 years and 3 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

44908/15

02/09/2015

Marilena Ristache

25/10/1968

Mihai-Adrian Hotca,

Bucharest

08/01/2009

05/03/2015

6 years and 1 month and 26 days

3 levels of jurisdiction

54082/15

21/10/2015

Mache-Marian Gheorghiță

05/09/1966

Claudiu-Mihai Toma,

Bucharest

03/12/2007

30/04/2015

7 years and 5 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

55981/15

28/10/2015

Nicolaie Costache

24/03/1956

Claudiu-Mihai Toma,

Bucharest

03/12/2007

30/04/2015

7 years and 5 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255