FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 69442/14 Ion CRSTEA against Romania and 4 other applications (see list appended)

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 applicants and the relevant details of the applications are 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. 55872/15 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, 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. Application no. 35234/15

4 . The Government raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicant ’ s complaints should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae . In this connection they pointed out that the judgment of 19 December 2013 did not include any outstanding obligation in favour of the applicant.

5. The applicant did not reply to the Government ’ s arguments.

6 . In light of all the evidence before it, and in particular noting that the judgment of 19 December 2013 did not include any obligation in favour of the applicant which had not been enforced already, the Court considers that the Government ’ s objection as regards the applicant ’ s lack of victim status must be upheld. It follows that this application 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.

2. Applications nos. 55872/15 and 14931/16

7 . The Government submitted that the applicants ’ complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six-month rule. According to the Government, the time-limit had started to run from 13 October 2014 and 8 February 2011, respectively, the dates when the judgments had been fully enforced.

8. The applicants disagreed without providing any valid argument to oppose to the Government ’ s preliminary objection.

9. The Court reiterates that in cases involving the execution of a final court judgment a continuing situation ends, in principle, on the date of the enforcement of the relevant judgment or when an “objective impossibility” to enforce such judgment is duly acknowledged (see Sokolov and Others v. Serbia (dec.), no. 30859/10, § 29, 14 January 2014).

10 . Turning to the above-mentioned cases, the Court observes that the six- month time-limit had started to run respectively from 13 October 2014, when the judgment of 16 September 2014 was enforced, and from 8 February 2011, when the judgment of 24 March 2010 was enforced. The Court therefore agrees with the Government and finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

3. Applications nos. 69442/14 and 47266/15

11. The Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government in the two remaining applications, because they are in any event inadmissible for the reasons presented below.

12. In respect of application no. 69442/14, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcement. The Court notes that the judgment in question was enforced within a period of thirty days. Taking into account the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court notes that this period is 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).

13. As regards application no. 47266/15 the Court observes that the applicant did not undertake the required procedural steps in order to enforce the judgment, namely he failed to submit a request for payment, as required by the domestic legislation in his case (see Li v. Russia, no. 38388/07, §§ 14-21, 24 April 2014).

14. In view of the above, the Court finds that these applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

C. Other alleged violations under well-established case-law

15. In application no. 55872/15, the applicant also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of his non ‑ enforcement complaint.

16. The Court notes that Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52 , Series A no. 131 ). Since the Court has found that the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are manifestly ill ‑ founded, it follows that the applicant does not have an arguable claim and that Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case.

17. Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 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 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

69442/14

03/10/2014

Ion Cârstea

07/11/1949

TimiÈ™ County Court,

15/12/2013

12/03/2014

10/04/2014

30 days

35234/15

07/07/2015

Emilian Barbu

04/04/1969

Bucharest Court of Appeal,

19/12/2013

19/12/2013

pending

More than 4 years and 6 months and 9 days

47266/15

17/09/2015

Nicolae-Moise Mordășan

28/07/1976

Sibiu County Court,

11/04/2013

17/10/2013

pending

More than 4 years and 8 months and 10 days

55872/15

03/11/2015

Veta Păsculescu

24/10/1966

Craiova Court of Appeal, 16/09/2014

16/09/2014

13/10/2014

28 days

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions

14931/16

10/03/2016

Erszebet Ilona Csutak Nagy

15/02/1961

Cluj Court of Appeal, 24/03/2010

24/01/2011

08/02/2011

16 days