FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 32785/12 Florica ÅžCHIOPU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 February 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič, President, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 May 2012,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Florica Şchiopu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Alba Iulia. She was represented before the Court by Ms A. Călugăr, a lawyer practising in Alba Iulia.

2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 8 July 2009 the Aiud District Court convicted two private persons jointly with the county food safety department for selling meat infested with a parasite which caused the applicant to develop trichinosis. The applicant was awarded pecuniary damages in the amount of 1958,34 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately 467 euros (EUR)) and RON 50,000 (approximately EUR 12,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, both amounts updated in accordance with the inflation rate.

5. The above judgment became final on 22 February 2011 when the Pite ÅŸ ti Court of Appeal rejected the appeals filed in the case.

6. On 27 April 2011 the applicant requested the services of a bailiff who, on 17 Mai 2011, had sent the food safety department a notification to pay the amounts awarded by the court.

7. On 24 November 2011 the applicant received from the food safety department RON 56,401.92 (approximately EUR 13,056).

8. In the meantime, on 2 June 2011 the food safety department had requested before the courts a clarification of the operative provisions of the judgment of 8 July 2009 in respect of the exact value of the amounts to be paid to the applicant with reference to the inflation rate.

9. By a judgment adopted on 13 December 2012 the Alba County Court clarified the issue of the inflation rate and on 5 February 2013 the bailiff notified the food safety department that a remaining amount of RON 943.93 was outstanding.

10. On 28 February 2013 the applicant received from the food safety department RON 958,93.

B. Relevant domestic law

11. The relevant domestic legal provisions concerning the enforcement of final judgments against State authorities are described in the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania (nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, §§ 36-40, 7 January 2014).

COMPLAINTS

12. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive delay in the enforcement of the judgment of the Aiud District Court of 8 July 2009.

13. The applicant also complained under Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings finalised with the judgment of 22 February 2011 of the Pite ş ti Court of Appeal.

THE LAW

A. On the complaint concerning the non-enforcement

14. The applicant complained that the State had excessively delayed the enforcement of the judgment of 8 July 2009 in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows in its relevant parts:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a ... tribunal”

15. The Government argued that the judgment of 8 July 2009 had been duly enforced within a reasonable delay in compliance with the guarantees set forth by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

16. The Court reiterates that the right to a tribunal protected by Article 6 would be illusory if a Contracting State ’ s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision – creating an established right to payment or to have certain actions taken in the applicant ’ s favour, which should be considered as a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party (see among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, §§ 65 and 87, ECHR 2009).

17. The Court has frequently held that an unreasonably long delay in the enforcement of a binding judgment may breach the Convention (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, § 37, ECHR 2002-III). To decide if the delay was reasonable, it will first look at the time it took the authorities to execute the judgment, the complexity of the enforcement proceedings, the conduct of the applicant and the authorities, and the nature of the award (see Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu , cited above , § 57).

19. Turning to the current case the Court notes that t he judgment of 8 July 2009, which became final on 22 February 2011, was executed in November 2011 that is within ten months from the date on which it became binding and enforceable . The subsequent judgment of 13 December 2012 was enforced in less than three months from its adoption. In these circumstances and in view of the above-mentioned case-law, the Court considers that both periods complied with the requirements of the Convention (see, for example, V ă caru and Others v. Romania (dec.) , nos. 22994/08, 23400/08, 41315/08, 17802/10, 49565/11, 71791/12, § 8, 3 February 2015). The Court therefore finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

20. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

B. On the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings

21. The applicant also complained that the proceedings finalised with the judgment of 22 February 2011 - awarding her compensation for her infection with a life threatening disease - had been excessively lengthy, in breach of the reasonable time guarantee under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as in breach of the State ’ s positive obligation to protect life as provided by Article 2 of the Convention.

22. The Court notes that this complaint was submitted on 8 May 2012, which is more than six months from the adoption of the final decision in the proceedings complained about. It follows that this complaint is 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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 February 2016 .

FatoÅŸ Aracı BoÅ¡tjan M. Zupančič              Deputy Registrar President