Search
document

S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Doc ref: 44669/05, 35921/07, 28918/09, 44399/09, 24212/10, 25468/10, 30058/10, 30103/10, 64299/10, 43535/12, ... • ECHR ID: 001-159386

Document date: November 19, 2015

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 6

S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

Doc ref: 44669/05, 35921/07, 28918/09, 44399/09, 24212/10, 25468/10, 30058/10, 30103/10, 64299/10, 43535/12, ... • ECHR ID: 001-159386

Document date: November 19, 2015

Cited paragraphs only

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 44669/05 S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L. against Romania and 11 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 November 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. D e 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by State authorities in their favour 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 AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

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).

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 v. Romania , nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07 , § 57, 7 January 2014 ).

In the present cases, after having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that for various reasons, enumerated below, the State cannot be held liable for the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the outstanding judgments given in the applicants ’ favour. The Court thus notes that in applications nos. 44669/05, 24212/10, 25468/10, 30058/10, 30103/10, 13940/14 and 54326/14 the outstanding judgments can no longer be enforced due to an objective impossibility ( see Ciobanu and Others v. Romania ( dec. ), nos. 898/06, 39374/07, 1161/08 and 36461/08, § 27, 6 September 2011); that application no. 28918/09 is inadmissible in so far as the applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies (see Rotescu and Others v. Romania , no. 6524/03, § 9, 13 May 2014 ( dec. ); that applicati on no. 44399/09 must be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded (see Albert and Others v. Romania , no. 48006/11, § 59, 8 January 2013 ( dec. ); and that in applications nos. 35921/07, 64299/10 and 43535/12 the applicants have lost their victim status (see, among many other authorities, Halilovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ( dec. ), no. 21206/07, § 19, 17 January 2012) .

In view of the above, the Court finds that the applications are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

Some applicants also raised other complaints under various Articles o f the Convention. However, in light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. It follows that the respective parts of the applications 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 applications inadmissible .

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2015 .

Karen Reid Vincent A. D e Gaetano Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth/Date of registration

Relevant domestic decision

44669/05

08/12/2005

S.C. YOUR FRIEND S.R.L.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice, 24/02/2004

35921/07

17/07/2007

Mariana-Maria GAVRILOIU

13/10/1959

Deva District Court, 12/03/1992

28918/09

24/04/2009

Viorica POSTELNICU

29/09/1935

Buzău County Court, 24/02/2009

44399/09

10/08/2009

Floarea LEAUA

12/12/1936

Bucharest County Court, 04/03/2005

24212/10

23/04/2010

Iuliana PETRE

28/04/1952

Buzău District Court, 07/11/2008

25468/10

23/04/2010

Traian DĂNIŢĂ

11/10/1970

Buzău County Court , 18/03/2009

30058/10

23/04/2010

Ștefăniță Laurențiu VOICU

23/09/1977

Buzău County Court , 18/03/2009

30103/10

23/04/2010

Eugenia Daniela MIHALCEA

18/12/1960

Buzău County Court , 18/03/2009

64299/10

23/09/2010

Sorin Cristian CARP

28/12/1947

Brașov County Court, 23/03/2010

43535/12

05/07/2012

Traian CUCU

28/04/1965

Bucharest District Court of the 5 th Precinct, 21/06/2010

13940/14

04/01/2014

Ștefan LUNGEANU

14/11/1957

High Court of Cassation and Justice, 08/02/2011

54326/14

10/07/2014

(19 applicants)

Delia CHIRIȚĂ

16/04/1971

Adrian PETRESCU

27/01/1958

Teodora LUCACI

01/10/1971

Loredana MÎNECUȚĂ

13/10/1975

Maria COLEȘIU

31/05/1948

Gheorghe MIHAI

14/09/1952

Rodica Delia NICOLCIOIU

27/05/1972

Lucica MINEA

05/08/1968

Lucian BRAGHEȘIU

16/03/1971

Daniela Ileana CURT

06/05/1961

Steluța Liliana MOROIE

18/11/1975

Liliana CÃŽRSTEA

29/12/1969

Rodica OLTEANU

30/11/1970

Daniela STOICA

10/10/1960

Elena TITILINCU

15/05/1967

Dorel STOICA

27/06/1961

Lavinia IANOȘIU

05/01/1973

Lăcrămioara VIȘOIU

06/01/1973

Georgeta BREZEAN

06/10/1960

Brașov County Court, 16/12/2008

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant