Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 17024/06 Gheorghe PIT Ä‚ ROIU against Romania and 10 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 Octobe r 2017 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. 49532/08 under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the civil proceedings, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) . In applications nos. 19299/08, 41068/08 and 4953 2 /08, 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 )

4. In the present applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government, because the complaints are inadmissible in any event, as explained below.

5. 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 outstanding judgments given in the applicants ’ favour.

6. 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: not using the available legal avenues to enforce the judgment, namely to demolish the debtors constructions at their expense (applications nos. 17024/06 and 53316/08); not acting diligently so as to prevent the enforcement proceedings from becoming obsolete (applications nos. 22928/08, with regard to the first set of enforcement proceedings, and 48082/08; see Topciov v. Romania ( dec. ) , no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006 ); not pursuing the enforcement proceedings (applications nos. 41068/08 and 54610/08); not filing a request to register on the list of creditors (application no. 49532/08); failing to cooperate with the bailiff, namely refusing to accompany him to meetings with the purpose of enforcing the judgment (application no. 48097/08, in respect of the obligation to grant possession; see Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece , no. 32141/04, § 27, 8 November 2007 , and Ciprova v. the Czech Republic ( dec. ), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).

7. As regards application no. 19299/08, 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 his 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 , cited above ).

8. As regards application no. 22928/08, in respect of the second set of enforcement proceedings, application no. 48097/08, in respect of the pecuniary obligation, as well as applications nos. 42418/07 and 49217/07, 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 question were enforced with delays ranging from 5 months to 9 years and 7 months. Taking into account the complexity of the enforcement proceedings and the conduct of the applicants and of the authorities, which have 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 (see 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).

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.

C. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (length of the civil proceedings)

10. In application no. 49532/08, the applicants also complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that the length of the civil proceedings, finalised by the judgment of 14 November 1996, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

11. The Court observes that the period under consideration, namely from 20 June 1994 until 14 November 1996, amounted to a total of 2 years, 4 months and 26 days for three levels of jurisdiction which cannot be considered excessive.

12. It follows that this part of the application no. 49532/08 is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

D. Remaining complaints

13. In applications nos. 19299/08, 41068/08 and 49532/08, the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

14. 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.

15. 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 9 November 2017 .

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

Representative name and location

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

17024/06

19/04/2006

Gheorghe Pit ă roiu

27/06/1956

Z ă treanu Ion

Craiova

Craiova District Court, 09/11/1993

04/06/1998

pending

More than 19 years and 3 months and 5 days

42418/07

24/09/2007

Gheorghe Marin

28/03/1943

Brașov Court of Appeal, 03/12/2004

03/12/2004

10/07/2007

2 years and 7 months and 8 days

49217/07

06/11/2007

Maria Badea

05/10/1955

ArgeÈ™ County Court, 07/07/2005

07/07/2005

08/12/2005

5 months and 2 days

19299/08

16/04/2008

Petrică- Corneliu Vladu

22/10/1955

Cristian Dumitroiu

02/08 /1955

Cimpoeru Dan

Bucarest

Alba County Court, 16/11/2001

16/11/2001

pending

More than 15 years and 9 months and 20 days

22928/08

09/05/2008

Costic ă Zaharia

26/08/1942

Galați District Court, 02/09/1992

Galați District Court, 20/05/2002

02/09/1992

27/08/2003

pending

More than 25 years and 11 days

09/04/2013

9 years and 7 months and 14 days

41068/08

18/08/2008

Cristian Constantin Corbu

03/07/1968

Clara Denise Tahbaz

27/07/1969

Bucharest Court of Appeal, 19/11/2004

Bucharest Court of Appeal, 18/02/2008

19/11/2004

18/02/2008

06/05/2008

3 years and 5 months and 18 days

pending

More than 9 years and 6 months and 18 days

48082/08

29/09/2008

Constantin Popovici

20/09/1948

Roman District Court, 14/12/2004

14/12/2004

pending

More than 12 years and 8 months and 22 days

48097/08

23/09/2008

Aurora Iacob

Born: 13/12/1926;

deceased : 20/03/2013; Proceedings pursued by heir, Niculina Baciu , born on 06/04/1950.

Iași County Court, 23/06/2003

23/06/2003

01/02/2006

2 years and 7 months and 10 days

pending

More than 14 years and 2 months and 13 days

49532/08

07/10/2008

S.A. Somi UriÈ™ or

Dej District Court, 14/06/1995

14/11/1996

pending

More than 20 years and 9 months and 22 days

Art. 6 § 1 -

excessive length

of civil

proceedings

53316/08

28/10/2008

Marin Cesar

09/03/1926

Bucharest District 1 Court, 20/12/2002

01/07/2005

pending

More than 12 years and 2 months and 4 days

54610/08

29/10/2008

Aurelia Barbu

01/03/1960

Bucharest District 6 Court, 30/03/2007

30/03/2007

28/12/2015

8 years and 8 months and 29 days

24/04/2008

1 year and 26 days

Menu

PITĂROIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

PITĂROIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

LEXI