LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
MANOLIȚĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 17419/15, 55080/15, 56341/15, 56999/15, 57699/15, 59809/15, 61735/15, 509/16, 7022/16, 12631/16, 203... • ECHR ID: 001-186903
Document date: September 13, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
MANOLIȚĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 17419/15, 55080/15, 56341/15, 56999/15, 57699/15, 59809/15, 61735/15, 509/16, 7022/16, 12631/16, 203... • ECHR ID: 001-186903
Document date: September 13, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17419/15 Florin MANOLIȚĂ against Romania and 11 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 civil proceedings as well as the complaint in application no. 57699/15 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 civil 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. 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 date, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Brudan , cited above, § 88).
7. 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.
8. 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
9. In application no. 57699/15 the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. Given that the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention has been rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, no issue arises in relation to the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 13. It follows that it is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
D. Remaining complaints
10. In applications nos. 17419/15 and 56999/15 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
11. 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.
12. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected 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 civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant ’ s name
Date of birth / Date of registration
Representative ’ s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Domestic court file number
Other complaints under well-established case-law
17419/15
02/04/2015
Florin Manoliță
13/02/1982
Daniela Roxana Salaoru,
Bucharest
19/12/2007
28/05/2014
6 years and 5 months and 10 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
46299/3/2007*
55080/15
27/10/2015
Ioana Macamete
07/01/1937
Sanda Cornelia Fulga,
Craiova
30/08/2006
22/04/2015
8 years and 7 months and 24 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
945/1/2015
56341/15
23/12/2015
Emil Åžandor
18/11/1954
13/04/2010
04/05/2015
5 years and 22 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
12325/271/2012
56999/15
16/09/2015
Lucia-Constanța Nicolescu
01/01/1934
Gheorghe-Adrian Şulţ
24/02/1955
Alina-Veronica Cârnaru,
Bucharest
12/03/2008
16/03/2015
7 years and 5 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
7202/306/2009
57699/15
09/11/2015
Household
Lența Pașcu
06/10/1952
Neculai Pașcu
04/12/1948
Gabriela Veronica Cocină,
Iași
29/01/2008
14/05/2015
7 years and 3 months and 16 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
1399/245/2008
Art. 13 – Lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings.
59809/15
26/11/2015
Flavius-Nicolae Jurcău
17/09/1971
20/07/2010
30/03/2015
4 years and 8 months and 11 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
1953/2/2013
61735/15
08/12/2015
Marian Cristil
25/05/1962
Otilia-Monalisa Stoica,
Bucharest
02/09/2003
12/04/2017
13 years and 7 months and 11 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
3100/1748/2010*
509/16
22/12/2015
Household
Gheorghe Onița
07/10/1939
Floare Onița
01/02/1946
Árpád Ștefan Kolozsi,
Oradea
18/04/2006
12/04/2017
10 years and 11 months and 26 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
2279/111/2014
7022/16
29/01/2016
Robert Kovacs
25/05/1978
17/06/2009
22/09/2015
6 years and 3 months and 6 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
5832/296/2009
12631/16
18/02/2016
Gheorghe Vida
06/01/1958
Călin Gheorghe Dragomir,
Satu Mare
23/12/2008
25/09/2015
6 years and 9 months and 3 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
1566/266/2008*
20370/16
08/04/2016
Virgil Radu
31/08/1951
19/06/2007
09/10/2015
8 years and 3 months and 21 days
3 levels of jurisdiction
5522/2/2015
44048/16
18/07/2016
Household
Romulus-Marian Paralescu
18/07/1988
Ioana-Alina Paralescu
02/12/1984
02/09/2010
10/03/2016
5 years and 6 months and 9 days
2 levels of jurisdiction
7778/221/2010*
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
