FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 61446/11 Tiberiu Ioan VASILE against Romania and 2 other applications (see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 December 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President, Egidijus KÅ«ris , Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Karen Reid, 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,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of ...any criminal charge against him ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). In addition, only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of failure to comply with the “reasonable time” requirement (see Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).

In the present cases, after having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the State cannot be held liable for the non ‑ compliance with the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court thus notes that, taking into consideration the overall length of proceedings, the applicants ’ conduct and the conduct of the authorities, the length of the proceedings was not excessive and met the “reasonable time” requirement (see, among other authorities, Lazariu v. Romania , no. 31973/03, §§ 14 9 ‑ 151, 13 November 2014 and Ion Popescu v. Romania ( dec. ), no. 4206/11, §§ 41 and 43, 17 March 2015).

In these circumstances, the Court finds that the complaints are inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § § 1 and 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 14 January 2016 .

Karen Reid Vincent A. De Gaetano Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth

Representative name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

61446/11

21/09/2011

Tiberiu Ioan VASILE

15/03/1963

-

31/01/2005

22/03/2011

6 years and 2 months

3 levels of jurisdiction

21900/12

29/03/2012

Tiberiu Alexandru ARUS

08/05/1970

Daniela VOMIR BIZO

Cluj Napoca

21/11/2003

29/11/2011

8 years

3 levels of jurisdiction

69855/12

20/10/2012

Nicolae Cristian ZAIU

05/09/1972

Marius Leontin COSTACHE

Craiova

03/03/2004

14/05/2012

8 years and 2 months

3 levels of jurisdiction