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

AGAFIȚEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Doc ref: 21226/16;21696/16;52066/16;55403/16;58222/16 • ECHR ID: 001-186927

Document date: September 13, 2018

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 1

AGAFIȚEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Doc ref: 21226/16;21696/16;52066/16;55403/16;58222/16 • ECHR ID: 001-186927

Document date: September 13, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21226/16 Marius-Constantin AGAFIÈšEI against Romania and 4 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 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 decisions 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

4. In the present applications, 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.

5. In particular, the Court notes that in applications nos. 21226/16 and 55403/16, having regard to the particular context of the cases, namely the amounts to be paid and the domestic authorities ’ assessment as to the impact of an immediate payment of the total amounts, the Court considers that the measures taken by the national authorities to pay the amounts due in several installments struck a fair balance between the applicants ’ rights to see their judgments enforced within a reasonable time and the public interest at stake (see Dumitru and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 57265/08, §§ 45-52, 4 September 2012).

6. In applications nos. 21696/16 and 58222/16, the Court notes that the judgments in question were enforced within periods not exceeding 1 year and 3 months. 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. In respect of application no. 52066/16 the Court observes that the state was ordered to launch a public tender with regard to a company which was under insolvency proceedings; something that is not possible according to domestic legislation. The Court therefore notes the existence of an objective impossibility to enforce the judgment.

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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications ;

Declares the applications 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 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 / Date of registration

Relevant domestic judgment

Start date of non-enforcement period

End date of non-enforcement period

Length of enforcement proceedings

21226/16

08/04/2016

Marius-Constantin Agafiței

20/03/1975

Neam È› County Court,

21/02/2012

13/07/2012

08/10/2015

3 years and 2 months and 26 days

21696/16

14/04/2016

Ion Iosif

19/07/1963

represented by Călin Ovidiu Pîrjan, a lawyer practising in Constanța

High Court of Cassation and Justice,

14/10/2015

14/10/2015

15/12/2016

1 year and 2 months and 2 days

52066/16

26/08/2016

S.C. Concept LTD S.R.L.

31/01/1992

represented by Gheorghe Eduard Manole

Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, 05/10/2005

05/10/2005

pending

More than 12 years and 8 months and 23 days

55403/16

16/09/2016

S.C. Termosystem Services TSS S.R.L.

09/01/2003

represented by Florentina Tatiana Bratu, a lawyer practising in Constanța

Constanța County Court,

25/02/2015

04/11/2015

pending

More than 2 years and 7 months and 24 days

58222/16

28/09/2016

Theodor-Iulian Lădar

15/10/1979

Cristina-Andreea Lădar

17/11/1976

represented by Andrei Sorin Munteanu, a lawyer practising in Constanța

Constanța Court of Appeal, 09/09/2015

15/03/2016

29/06/2017

1 year and 3 months and 15 days

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 400211 • Paragraphs parsed: 44892118 • Citations processed 3448707