ANGHEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 7823/04, 20670/04, 34051/05, 9280/06, 13037/06, 26940/07, 29395/07, 41659/08, 56179/08, 5455/09, 779... • ECHR ID: 001-181666
Document date: February 15, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7823/04 Alesandru ANGHEL and Maria ANGHEL against Romania and 19 other applications (see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15 February 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. 19534/10 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) . In applications nos. 7823/04, 20670/04, 34051/05, 26940/07, 41659/08, 56179/08, 18963/09 the 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 and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 ( non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments )
1. Preliminary objections
4 . As regards application no. 20670/04, t he Government submitted that the applicant ’ s complaints should be rejected for non-observance of the six ‑ month rule. According to the Government, this time-limit had started to run from 20 March 2003, the date when the Arad County Court had closed the enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicant company.
5. The applicant company did not address this preliminary objection in its observations.
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 case, the Court observes that the six ‑ month time-limit had started to run from 20 March 2003, when the Arad County Court duly acknowledged the “objective impossibility” to enforce the outstanding judgment. 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. It follows that this part of the application no. 20670/04 must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
8 . As regards applications nos. 9280/06 and 26940/07, in respect of the obligation to reinstate the applicants in their employment, the Court observes that the continuing situations ended when the insolvency proceedings involving their employers had started, namely on 16 November 2004 and 22 June 1999 respectively (see Cone v. Romania , no. 35935/02, § 26, 24 June 2008). Therefore, the Court notes that these complaints too were introduced outside the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
9 . In respect of application no. 41659/08, the Government submitted that the applicant ’ s complaints should be dismissed as incompatible ratione personae . In this connection they pointed out that the outstanding judgment of 22 September 2006 included an obligation in favour of a third party, and not the applicant.
10. The applicant disagreed.
11 . In light of all the evidence before it, and in particular noting that in the judgment of 22 September 2006 the national court ruled in favour of a third party, the Court considers that the Government ’ s objection as regards the applicant ’ s lack of legal standing must be upheld. It follows that these complaints in application no. 41659/08 are 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.
12. 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 inadmissible in any event, as presented below.
2. Remaining applications
13. 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 in the remaining applications.
14. 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 use the available legal avenues to recover the debt from the private individuals found liable for the bankruptcy of the debtor companies (applications nos. 9280/06, with regard to the obligation of payment of salary rights, and 29395/07); failing to pursue the enforcement proceedings and preventing them from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 7797/09, 16513/10 and 30794/10 ); failing to institute enforcement proceedings (application no. 9311/09); failing to subscribe on the creditors ’ ranking table in insolvency proceedings (application no. 13432/09); failing to pursue the proceedings establishing the insolvency of the debtor company and failing to request the appointment of a liquidator (application no. 18963/09); failing to take adequate measures to clarify the property title (application no. 48239/09; see Pu ș caș v. Romania , no. 30502/03, §§ 61-64, 11 October 2007); failing to institute enforcement proceedings over the debtor ’ s immovable assets (application no. 54591/09); failing to prove whether enforcement proceedings had been instituted (application no. 19534/10, with regard to the judgment of 20 December 2005 issued by the Cluj Napoca District Court; see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).
15. In respect of applications nos. 7823/04, 13037/06, 26940/07 ( with regard to the obligation of payment of salary rights), 56179/08 and 15066/09 (with regard to the judgments of 18 February 2005 and of 22 September 2006) 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) .
16. As regards applications nos. 34051/05 (in respect of the judgment of 27 October 2003), 5455/09, 15066/09 (in respect of the judgment of 14 November 2003), as well as application no. 19534/10 (in respect of the remaining judgments), 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 3 years and 7 months to 8 years and 10 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).
17. 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
18. In application no. 19534/10, the applicants complained of the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in respect of their non-enforcement complaint.
19. 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).
20. The Court has found that the applicants ’ complaint under Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention is manifestly ill-founded. It follows that the applicants do not have an arguable claim and Article 13 is therefore not applicable to this case.
21. Consequently, this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
D. Remaining complaints
22. In applications nos. 7823/04, 20670/04, 34051/05, 26940/07, 41659/08, 56179/08 and 18963/09, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
23. The Court has examined the applications 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.
24. 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 8 March 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 judgment
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Other complaints under well-established case-law
7823/04
26/01/2004
Alesandru Anghel
09/02/1949
Maria Anghel
29/08/1954
Timișoara District Court, 29/11/2000
18/06/2001
pending
More than 16 years and 5 months and 7 days
20670/04
04/03/2004
S.C. Ewb Trading S.R.L.
Oradea Court of Appeal, 13/04/1999
04/04/2000
20/03/2003
2 years and 11 months and 17 days
34051/05
14/09/2005
S.C. Polyinvest S.R.L. , represented by Vesselin Kamenov
Constanța County Court, 27/10/2003
27/10/2003
22/06/2007
3 years and 7 months and 27 days
9280/06
24/01/2006
Adriana Crăete
06/10/1957
Gorj County Court, 06/03/2003
04/12/2003
pending
More than 13 years and
11 months and 20 days
13037/06
29/03/2006
Constantin Fiastru
16/09/1939
Craiova Court of Appeal, 25/09/2002
25/09/2002
pending
More than 15 years and 2 months and 10 days
26940/07
06/09/2004
Traian Zahu
16/04/1947
Baia Mare District Court, 23/09/1997
05/02/1998
pending
More than 19 years and 9 months and 19 days
29395/07
29/06/2007
Petre Mihăilescu
12/05/1946
Ioana Mihailescu
30/04/1947
Bucharest District 3 Court, 17/10/2005
13/10/2006
pending
More than 11 years and 1 month and 11 days
41659/08
25/08/2008
A.P.F. Åžopu Neculai , represented by Olteanu Ionel
Ialomița County Court, 22/09/2006
16/04/2007
pending
More than 10 years and 7 months and 8 days
56179/08
14/11/2008
Marin Lungu
13/08/1952
Bucharest District Court, 31/03/1998
03/06/1999
pending
More than 18 years and 5 months and 22 days
5455/09
15/01/2009
Liviu Tarcău
06/06/1936
Toplița District Court, 12/04/2005
Toplița District Court, 08/10/2007
03/11/2005
26/06/2008
pending
More than 12 years and 22 days
31/01/2011
2 years and 7 months and 6 days
7797/09
02/02/2009
Valeriu Petrescu
28/11/1939
TimiÈ™ County Court, 20/08/1999
14/11/2000
pending
More than 17 years and 11 days
9311/09
30/01/2009
Nicolae Trancău
11/08/1956
Târgu -Jiu District Court, 26/03/2004
26/03/2004
pending
More than 13 years and 7 months and 30 days
13432/09
10/02/2009
Mariana Paula UleÅŸteanu
28/06/1945, represented by Patit Victoria , a lawyer practising in Bucharest
Bucharest County Court, 13/06/2006
13/06/2006
pending
More than 11 years and 5 months and 11 days
15066/09
10/03/2009
A.F. Roman Aurica
struck out from the trade registry: 31/07/2007;
Proceedings pursued by sole associate, Roman Aurica , born on
15/03/1961, represented by Jurj Vasile
Baia Mare District Court, 14/11/2003
MaramureÈ™ County Court, 18/02/2005
MaramureÈ™ County Court, 22/09/2006
14/11/2003
18/02/2005
27/09/2006
10/12/2008
5 years and 27 days
pending
More than 12 years and 9 months and 7 days
pending
More than 11 years and 1 month and 29 days
18963/09
23/03/2009
Maria Ștefan
11/05/1954
Constan È› a District Court, 11/03/2002
21/03/2006
pending
More than 11 years and 8 months and 4 days
48239/09
02/09/2009
Pavel Băcilă
11/09/1947
MediaÈ™ District Court, 12/09/2005
31/10/2005
pending
More than 12 years and 25 days
54591/09
25/09/2009
Ana Eugenia Simionescu
01/01/1942
Roșiorii de Vede District Court, 21/06/2006
16/11/2006
pending
More than 11 years and 9 days
16513/10
03/03/2010
Valeria Silveanu
Olt District Court, 05/04/1999
Slatina District Court, 25/04/2001
05/04/1999
25/04/2001
pending
More than 18 years and 7 months and 19 days
pending
More than 16 years and 6 months and 30 days
19534/10
01/04/2010
Vasile Miron
10/08/1936
Ana Miron
07/11/1937
represented by Chiriţă Radu Liviu , a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca
Cluj Napoca District Court, 14/09/1994
Cluj Napoca District Court, 20/12/1995
Cluj Napoca District Court, 29/07/1998
Cluj Napoca District Court, 08/05/1998
Cluj Napoca District Court, 13/01/2003
Cluj Napoca District Court, 01/07/2005
Cluj Napoca District Court, 20/12/2005
Mangalia District Court, 05/12/2006
Cluj Napoca District Court, 16/06/2006
24/11/1994
20/02/1996
29/07/1998
21/05/2002
15/10/2003
22/02/2006
07/03/2006
05/12/2006
07/12/2006
30/07/1996
1 year and 8 months and 7 days
30/07/1996
5 months and 11 days
17/12/1998
4 months and 19 days
07/06/2005
3 years and 18 days
06/09/2012
8 years and 10 months and 23 days
02/10/2007
1 years and 7 months and 11 days
pending
More than 11 years and 8 months and 18 days
02/10/2007
9 months and 28 days
02/10/2007
9 months and 26 days
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law
30794/10
07/05/2010
Marian Constantin
24/05/1979
represented by Constantin Petru
Suceava Court of Appeal, 07/01/2003
07/01/2003
pending
More than 14 years and 10 months and 18 days