FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24134/05 Neculai PRUTEANU and Others against Romania and 10 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 April 2018 as a committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Georges Ravarani , Marko Bošnjak , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications 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 applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application s 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. 46758/14 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. Preliminary objections

4 . As regards applications nos. 46289/13 and 58851/13, with regard to the obligations established by the judgments of 1 June 2006, 23 February 2000 and 13 March 2000 respectively, 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 9 November 2012, 18 March 2005 and 30 July 2012, respectively, the dates when the judgments had been enforced.

5 . The applicants disagreed.

6 . 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).

7 . Turning to the above-mentioned cases, the Court observes that the six-month time-limit had started to run from 9 November 2012, when the judgment of 1 June 2006 was enforced (as regards application no. 46289/13) and from 18 March 2005 and 30 July 2012, respectively (as regards application no. 58851/13, in respect of the obligations established by the judgments of 23 February 2000 and 13 March 2000) . 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 Ar ticle 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

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

2. Remaining applications

9 . Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants ’ favour in the remaining applications.

10 . In particular, the Court notes that the applicants failed to make appropriate use of the available domestic legal avenues and to comply with all the procedural and substantial requirements of the domestic law, as follows: failing to pursue the enforcement proceedings and preventing them from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 24134/05 and 36469/13); failing to exhaust the proceedings on changing the penalties for delay into compensatory damages (application no. 58851/13, in respect of the obligation established by judgment of 28 September 1998); failing to institute any proceedings for a period of more than three years and failing to pursue the criminal proceedings instituted against the debtor (application no. 80860/13); failing to register on the creditors ’ ranking table in insolvency proceedings (application no. 22579/14); failing to guard several goods, to designate a guardian or to cover fees for a guardian (application no. 33127/14) (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).

11 . In respect of applications nos. 56537/13 and 70781/13 (with regard to the judgment of 10 May 2013), the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgments. The Court notes however that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtors, private parties, did not have any assets (see Topciov v. Romania ( dec. ), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).

12 . As regards applications nos. 70781/13 (in respect of the judgment of 2 February 2012) and 46758/14, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicants in the process of enforcement. The Court notes that the judgments in question were enforced within periods ranging from 7 months to 9 years and 5 months. However, taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicants as well as the conduct of the authorities, which acted promptly and with diligence, the Court finds that the complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare Ion Popescu v. Romania ( dec. ), no. 4206/11, §§ 41-44, 17 March 2015, and Turturică and Others v. Romania ( dec. ), nos. 18805/10 and 2 others, 16 June 2016).

13 . As regards application no. 1124/14, the Court notes that the delay in the enforcement was the result of repeated challenges submitted by the debtors and followed by suspensions allowed by the domestic courts. The Court therefore concludes that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant company in the process of enforcement but the judgment in favour of the applicant company remained unenforced due to the lack of cooperation of third parties (see Poenaru v. Romania ( dec. ), no. 31752/04, §§ 40-44, 15 December 2009).

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

15 . In application no. 46758/14, 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 , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

17 . 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 Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case.

18 . 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 3 May 2018 .

Liv Tigerstedt Vincent A. De Gaetano              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 name

Date of birth/Date of registration

Relevant domestic decision

Start date of non-enforcement period

End date of non-enforcement period

Length of enforcement proceedings

Other complaints under well-established case-law

24134/05

22/06/2005

(3 applicants)

Neculai Pruteanu

04/08/1940

Virginia Iordache

21/10/1934

Anica Lupescu

05/06/1925

Pașcani District Court, 21/07/1992

03/02/1993

pending

More than 25 years and 12 days

36469/13

30/12/2013

Aneta Maftei

14/07/1953

represented by

Paul Rusu , a lawyer practising in Bucharest

Iași County Court, 21/06/2010

28/01/2011

18/02/2012

1 year and 22 days

46289/13

15/07/2013

Damian Lupescu

09/11/1950

Bucharest County Court, 01/06/2006

01/06/2006

09/11/2012

6 years and 5 months and 9 days

56537/13

27/08/2013

Aurel Nicolae Lupu

15/09/1947

Alba Iulia County Court, 11/03/2010

27/09/2010

pending

More than 7 years and 4 months and 19 days

58851/13

06/09/2013

(4 applicants)

Ioan Teodor Pînzaru

01/12/1955

Bogdan Ștefan Pînzaru

25/08/1993

Diana- Ioana Ricman

16/02/1979

Rodica Tatiana Pînzaru

16/12/1957

represented by

Cristian Theodor Ricman , a lawyer practising in Bucharest

Constanța Court of Appeal, 28/09/1998

Constanța County Court, 23/02/2000

Constanța County Court, 13/03/2000

28/09/1998

28/02/2000

13/03/2000

pending

More than 19 year s and 4 months and 18 days

18/03/2005

5 years and 19 days

30/07/2012

12 years and 4 months and 18 days

70781/13

11/11/2013

Marchian Nica

03/04/1985

Giurgiu County Court, 13/07/2011

Iași County Court, 05/11/2012

02/02/2012

10/05/2013

12/09/2012

7 months and 11 days

pending

More than 4 years and 9 months and 5 days

80860/13

15/12/2013

Ioan Șoldu

04/04/1925

Giurgiu County Court, 17/02/2003

30/03/2004

pending

More than 13 years and 10 months and 16 days

1124/14

17/12/2013

S.C. 90 ’ S Comp Impex S.R.L.

represented by Coreli Insolv Ipurl , a company located in Săcele

Court of Commercial Arbitration - Sibiu Ch amber of Commerce and Industry, 10/04/2003

15/05/2003

pending

More than 14 years and 9 months

22579/14

14/03/2014

Mihai-Florin Guran

05/08/1967

Gorj County Court, 05/05/2011

20/02/2013

pending

More than 4 years and 11 months and 26 days

33127/14

09/07/2014

Nistor Isai Faur

14/02/1966

Arad District Court, 09/02/2012

09/02/2012

pending

More than 6 years and 6 days

46758/14

09/09/2014

Nistor Isai Faur

14/02/1966

Arad County Court, 28/03/2007

28/03/2007

24/08/2016

9 years and 4 months and 28 days

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