FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 623/11 Florea TUDORACHE against Romania and 4 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 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 issue

4. As regards application no. 58884/11, in respect of the obligation to reinstate the applicant in his employment, the Court observes that the continuing situation ended when the insolvency proceedings involving his employer had started, namely on 16 November 2004 (see Cone v. Romania , no. 35935/02, § 26, 24 June 2008). Therefore, the Court notes that this complaint was 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.

2. Remaining complaints

5. 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 .

6. In respect of applications nos. 623/11, 58884/11, 1780/11 and 66905/12, the Court considers 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. 623/11 and 1780/12); failing to use the available legal avenues to recover the debt from the private individuals found liable for the bankruptcy of the debtor company (application no. 58884/11, with regard to the obligation of payment of salary rights); failing to use the available legal avenues to clarify the property title (application no. 66905/12, with respect to plots nos. 12420/3 and 12421; see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).

7. As regards application no. 52299/12, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcing the outstanding judgment. The Court notes however that the judgment in the applicant ’ s favour remained unenforced on account of the existence of an objective impossibility thereto, in particular in view of the fact that the debtor, a private person, did not have any assets (see Topciov v. Romania ( dec. ), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).

8. The Court finds, in respect of application no. 66905/12, as regards plots nos. 10538 and 12660, 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 7 months and 22 days. However, taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, which acted promptly and with diligence, the Court notes that this period is not so excessive as to raise an arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example, Ş erb ă nescu v. Romania ( dec. ), no. 43638/10, §§ 9-10, 1 December 2016).

9. 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 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 decisions)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Relevant domestic decision

Start date of non-enforcement period

End date of non-enforcement period

Length of enforcement proceedings

Domestic order

623/11

19/10/2010

Florea Tudorache

27/04/1946

Ploiești District Court, 16/12/2005

05/05/2006

pending

More than 11 years and 8 months and 11 days

Orders a private person to vacate the applicant ’ s property.

58884/11

24/01/2006

Aurel Mătuşea

27/02/1956

Gorj County Court, 13/03/2003

04/12/2003

pending

More than 14 years and 1 month and 12 days

Orders a private company to reinstate the applicant in his employment and to pay him salary rights.

1780/12

29/12/2011

Valentin Mircea Aldea

25/11/1956

Lucia Aldea

17/11/1954

Buzău District Court, 09/11/2005

09/11/2005

pending

More than 12 years and 2 months and 7 days

Orders a private person to vacate the applicant ’ s property.

52299/12

19/05/2012

Paul Popescu

18/10/1957

Ploiești District Court, 28/03/2009

28/03/2009

pending

More than 8 years and 9 months and 19 days

Orders a private person to pay the applicant 2,494.3 Romanian lei (LEI) representing court fees.

66905/12

08/10/2012

Rodica Cârcu

02/06/1945

represented by Sergiu Rădăcină , a lawyer practising in Bistri ța

Cluj Court of Appeal, 19/03/2001

Cluj Court of Appeal, 19/03/2001

19/03/2001

19/03/2001

09/11/2001

7 months and 22 days

11/07/2012

11 years and 3 months and 23 days

Orders private persons to vacate the applicant ’ s plots of land nos. 10538 and 12660;

Orders private persons to vaca te the applicant ’ s plots of land nos. 12420/3 and 12421.