THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 35526/09 Ioan RADU against Romania and 30 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section), sitting on 11 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Ineta Ziemele , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the appended applications,

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

THE FACTS

1. The applicants, whose names are listed in the annex hereto, are Romanian nationals and are all former employees of the private oil production company S.C. Petrom S.A., partly owned by the Romanian State (referred to below as “the Company”).

A. The circumstances of the cases

2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3. Between 2005 and 2007 the Company dismissed several thousands of employees throughout the country, including the applicants, on the background of a restructuring process.

On 21 April 2005 the Company and the employees ’ representatives agreed upon and adopted, as an annex of the Collective Labour Agreement, a “Social Plan” providing, inter alia , for a compensatory scheme in the case of dismissal for reasons not attributable to the employee ’ s conduct. This compensatory scheme was more generous than the one set forth in the Collective Labour Agreement.

4. Following their dismissal, all of the applicants received compensation for their dismissal as provided for by the Social Plan.

5. However, they filed civil actions against the Company requesting that, in addition to the compensatory payments received in accordance with the Social Plan, they also be awarded compensatory payments as provided for by the Collective Labour Agreement.

6. By final judgments delivered between 2008 and 2010 by various courts of appeal, the applicants ’ actions were rejected on the ground that the Social Plan offered a more generous compensatory scheme which replaced, but did not add to, the one provided for in the Collective Labour Agreement.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

7. The majority of courts dealing with claims that compensations under the Social Plan and the Collective Labour Agreement were to be paid concurrently dismissed these claims. However, two decisions of courts ruling at last instance, one on 16 March 2009 of the Craiova Court of Appeal and one on 25 November 2009 of the Oradea Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion, and granted the claim of concurrent payment.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicants complained that the outcome of their procedures were the result of a wrong interpretation of the relevant provisions by the domestic courts and that cases similar to their, reached a different outcome based on a differing interpretation of the same legal provisions. They were therefore discriminated against in relation to other employees from the Company whose similar claims were allowed by other courts across the country. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.

9. They further alleged that they were wrongfully deprived of the compensatory payments provided by the Collective Labour Agreement, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 t o the Convention.

THE LAW

10. The applicants complained of the decisions of domestic courts in relation to their claims and alleged that they were in breach of Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which, in so far as relevant read:

Article 6 § 1

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

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 12

“1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

2. No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.”

A. Arguments of the parties

11. The Government contended that the applications were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded or on the ground that the applicants have not suffered a significant disadvantage. They also claimed that some of the applications should be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

In particular, the Government submitted that the domestic decisions reaching a different conclusion that those in the applicants ’ cases were isolated decisions and could not be considered as having created a profound conflict of interpretation. Moreover, there had been numerous court decisions concerning the payment of compensation for dismissals by the Company between 2005 and 2007.

The majority of courts had a constant and coherent approach, that is, that the payments under the Social Plan and the Collective Labour Agreement were not concurrent. The isolated decisions reaching a different conclusion than that of the wide majority of courts had been delivered by other courts than those dealing with the applicants ’ cases. Throughout the country, there had been only two decisions by courts of appeal which reached a different conclusion and even these decisions were isolated within the same court of appeal.

Having regard to the great number of decisions dealing with the same matter, such isolated conclusions were inherent to the judicial process of interpreting legal provisions.

12. The applicants relied on their submissions made upon lodging their applications with the Court. They submitted four decisions of lower domestic courts and one final decision of a court of appeal which had reached the conclusion that the employees were entitled to concurrent payments based on both compensatory schemes.

B. The Court ’ s assessment

13. Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that the applications should be joined.

14. The Court reiterates at the outset that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 ‑ I) . It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation, its role being to verify whether the effects of such interpretation are compatible with the Convention, save in the event of evident arbitrariness, when the Court may question the interpretation of the domestic law by the national courts (see Nejdet Åžahin and Perihan Åžahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 49-50, 20 October 2011).

15. The possibility of conflicting court decisions is an inherent trait of any judicial system which is based on a network of trial and appeal courts with authority over the area of their territorial jurisdiction . Such divergences may also arise within the same court. That, in itself, cannot be considered contrary to the Convention.

In order to assess the conditions in which conflicting decisions of different domestic courts ruling at last instance are in breach of the fair trial requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court will first of all examine whether “p rofound and long-standing differences” exist in the case-law of the domestic courts (see, for instance, Albu and Others v. Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 other applications , § 34, 10 May 2012 ).

16. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the applicants, employees of the Company, were dismissed between 2005 and 2007 in similar circumstances. Claiming that they were entitled to the compensation provided for by both the Social Plan and the Collective Labour Agreement, they filed applications with domestic courts, which were dismissed between 2008 and 2010.

It appears from the information submitted by the parties that throughout the country a majority of courts gave similar rulings to the effect that the dismissed employees from the Company could not benefit of concurrent payments provided for by the Social Plan and the Collective Labour Agreement. Only two decisions of domestic courts ruling at last instance in claims similar to the one made by the applicants reached a different conclusion (see paragraph 7 above).

17. In the light of the above, the Court finds that there were neither profound nor long-standing differences in the case-law of the domestic courts relating to the matter at stake in the present case.

18. Furthermore, the Court notes that all the applicants in the present cases had the benefit of adversarial proceedings, in which they were able to adduce evidence as they estimated necessary, their arguments being properly examined by the courts. At the same time, the courts ’ conclusions and their interpretation of the relevant law cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.

19. In so far as the applicants complained that the domestic courts deprived them of the compensation provided for by the Collective Labour Agreement, the Court recalls that the deprivation of property referred to in the second sentence of the provision relied on by the applicants is primarily concerned with the formal expropriation of assets for public purposes and that a judicial decision on a claim as to which of two litigants is the owner of certain property according to the rules of private law can never be seen as constituting an unjustified State interference with the property rights of the losing party, as it is the very function of the courts to determine such disputes (see, for instance, Garzičić v. Montenegro , no. 17931/07 , § 37, 21 September 2010; H. v. the United Kingdom , no. 10000/82, Commission decision of 4 July 1983, DR 33 p. 247, at p. 257; and Bramelind and Malmström v. Sweden , no. 8588/79, Commission decision of 12 October 1982, DR 29, p. 64, at p. 82).

The same applies to proceedings, such as in the instant case, in which civil courts ruled on the parties ’ private law obligations.

20. Lastly, the Court notes that there is no evidence in the case file that there has been any discrimination against the applicant on any grounds.

21. Having regard to all the above-mentioned considerations, the Court considers that the applicants ’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded and should be dismissed as inadmissible pursuant to pursuant Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No .

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant ’ s name,

place of residence

Represented by

Date of final judgment / domestic court

1.

35526/09

25/06/2009

Ioan RADU

SebeÅŸ

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

2.

37837/09

25/06/2009

Ioan SUNZUIANA

Alba Iulia

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

3.

37846/09

26/06/2009

Nicolae SUTEU

Alba Iulia

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

4.

37978/09

26/06/2009

Simion ROMOÅžAN

Alba Iulia

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

5.

39975/09

15/06/2009

Ovidiu PUÅžCAÅž

Alba Iulia

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

6.

39978/09

26/06/2009

Mihai RASA

Sasciori

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

7.

41335/09

25/06/2009

Victor ia Ana COMÅžA

Alba Iulia

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

8.

41338/09

26/06/2009

Mihai COTRLEA

Spring

29 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

9.

41341/09

26/06/2009

Mihăilă CIBU

Daia Romana

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

10.

41366/09

26/06/2009

Niculae CIBU

Daia Romana

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

11.

41487/09

25/06/2009

Daniel Ioan CORCHEÅž

Vladimirescu

26 January 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

12.

42323/09

26/06/2009

Adrian TUREAN

Sebes

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

13.

42485/09

26/06/2009

Crinel Paul POPA

Alba Iulia

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

14.

42498/09

26/06/2009

Ioan Teodorin TURC

Patranjeni

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

15.

42832/09

26/06/2009

Dorin HALALAIE

Stremt

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

16.

46208/09

26/06/2009

Mircea -Virgil RAPCEA

Alba Iulia

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

17.

50731/09

28/06/2009

Marcela Petria HÄ‚RÄ‚GUÅž

Alba Iulia

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

18.

50733/09

26/06/2009

Ana MACARIE, 13/03/1955

Alba Iulia

23 February 2009 / Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

19.

53079/09

28/09/2009

Filofteia STÄ‚NCIOI, 05/09/1953

Ticleni

5 March 2009 / Craiova Court of Appeal (obtained by the applicant on 5 April 2009)

20.

999/10

04/12/2009

Ileana Mihaela MECHE, 02/03/1959

Targu Jiu

5 June 2009 / Craiova Court of Appeal

21.

1074/10

22/12/2009

Nicolae PLEÅžU, 16/08/1958 , Pades

Represented by Laurian GRIGORESCU

24 June 2009 / Craiova Court of Appeal

22.

12269/10

24/12/2009

Victor MECHE, 03/07/1956

Tg Jiu

29 June 2009 / Craiova Court of Appeal

23.

45869/10

12/07/2010

Ionel TIRSOAGA, Constantin FLOREA, Pielesti , Mioara VOICULESCU, Craiova, Florea TUDOR , Caracal, Clava Rodica NEGRILA , Ion MATEI, Marian ANCUTA , Manuela FOTA , Liliana BEZE, Ilie SIMION , Ion Cosmin STELEA, Mircea CIOCHINA, Minu BARBU , Nicolae ISPAS , Jenel DUTU , Craiova, Marcel CIUCIULETE , Bailesti , Gica URSACHI, Craiova, Ion BRINDUSA , Gheresti , Ioana CIOBANASU, Craiova, Constantin MARINESCU, Bailesti , Petre Cornel Florea GIUBELAN, Constantin Dan DUTA, Motatei , Marin TRANCA, Craiova, Ion STOENICA, Motatei Sever NICOLAE, Craiova, Gogu GALICEANU, Georgeta GALICEANU, Motatei , Florea VILCEA, Bailesti , Olimpian PIRVU , Pielesti , Gheorghe FISU, Alexandru NEGULETU, Virgil DORINGA , Cerat , Ionut GHITA , Bucovat , Constantin OLARU, Circea , Constantin ANDREESCU, Tudor OLTEANU, Craiova, Gheorghe VLAD, Bailesti , Marieta PETCU, Ileana PREDA, Stefan Viorel SAFTA, Floriana Gabriela BATRINU, Craiova

Represented by Radu Marinescu

12 January 2010 / Craiova Court of Appeal

24.

45944/10

12/07/2010

Marian BOANGIU, Oboga , Mariana CULCESCU, Marilena Monica DANILA, Marian TRINCU, Craiova, Ion DUMITRU, Ghercesti , Grigore PANA, Filiasi , Bomboana CIOCEA, Iordache COJOCARU, Craiova, Cornelia ANCA, Filiasi , Elena Liana OLTEANU , Gheorghita ROIBU, Marin MATEI, Mariana Carmen MATEI, Florica PATROI, Craiova, Victor BALAGIU, Filiasi , Florian MIULESCU Craiova

Represented by Radu Marinescu

14 January 2010 / Craiova Court of Appeal

25.

45981/10

12/07/2010

George PETCU, Ilie BORFEA, Craiova ,

Stefan TUDOR, Galicea Mare, Florica GEBLEA, Ionel GLAVAN, Craiova, Nelu Alin SADOVEANU, A nghel SADOVEANU, Ostroveni , Mihaela TUDOSIE, Craiova, Adrian STAN, Ghercesti , Aurel STAN, Ghercesti , Elena DRAGHICI , Costinel UNGUREANU, Ion IANCU, Elena IANCU, Marius Adinel DRUMEA, Dumitru DUDU , Violeta Georgeta ODINA, Marian IONESCU , Marian TANASE, Vergica GHITA, Rodica GOGONETU, Costel DINU, Ion DIACONU, Margareta Valentina STANCIU, Valentin DIACONU, Marinela STANCIU, George RUSU, Ion BOGOSLOV, Craiova, Constantin CIUREZU, Dobrida , Ilie COJOCARU, Circea

Represented by Radu Marinescu

14 January 2010 / Craiova Court of Appeal

26.

47148/10

03/08/2010

Mihaela Adriana ION, 13/03/1954, Buzau

Viorel ION, 18/09/1955 , Buzau

9 February 2010 / PloieÅŸti Court of Appeal

27.

50894/10

22/12/2009

Doina CIRLAN, 05/12/1952 , Tg Jiu

Represented by Laurian Grigorescu

24 June 2009 / Craiova Court of Appeal

28.

50895/10

22/12/2009

Doina DOBRESCU, 11/09/1958 , Targu Jiu

Represented by Laurian Grigorescu

22 June 2009 / Craiova Court of Appeal

29.

54085/10

07/09/2010

Toader AMOASEI

Botosani

23 March 2010 / Suceava Court of Appeal

30.

57377/10

17/09/2010

Marinel BORFEA, Ana SFETCU , Elena LACRARU , Cristinel Mitica GHIGA , Stefania MUSTATA , Craiova, Mihai CIRSTOIU, Aurica IORDACHE , Poiana Mare, Mihaela ION, Gheorghe CORNEA, Adrian DUDU, Marcel SAIZU, Adriana CATRINOIU, Mirela Florinela CINCA, Georgeta NUTA, Natalia DIACONU, Craiova , Ion TUDOR, Campeni , Marius PLOSCEANU, Adrian Ilie DOBROVOLSCHI, Agripina OPREA , Constantin TOMA, Silvia DUMITRESCU, Magdalena POPA, Iuliana GROSU, Alexandru SBENGHEA, Gabriel Silviu POPESCU, Stefan NITA, Victor BARBU, Constantin Liviu FOTA, Stelian BOANGIU, Jan VASILE, Jana ANTONIE, Craiova , Georgeta CIURLEA, Carcea , Florica OPRICA , Craiova

Represented by Radu Marinescu

19 April 2010 / Craiova Court of Appeal

31.

58385/10

19/08/2010

Paula FILIPOIU, Ion ROTARU , Mircea CRETU, Marian LUNGU, Nicolae SANDU, Mariana Simona MARIN, Maria Doina ODINA, Valeria ANCUTA, Viorica MAZILU, Craiova, Venera BIBIRITA , Radomiresti , Mariana BIBIRITA, Antonie POPESCU, Ceu , Ionica COJOCARU, Craiova, Angelica IOSIF , Calafat , Victor ia ILIE , Gheorghe COJOCARU, Craiova, Ionel PASMAC , Ciupercenii Vechi , Elena POPA, Craiova, Paula CONDEI, Calafat , Aurica PASMAC, Craiova, Stefan ONCICA, Calafat , Elena PISICA, Anda LEUCA , Tatiana BARBU, Calafat , Marin SCHILIGIU, Ciupercenii Vechi , Paula OPRICA , Calafat , Mircea PISICA, Maglavit , Ioana BOSA, Craiova, Sorin BREAZU, Ostroveni , Ileana GROZA, Dabuleni , Dorina Camelia ALBU, Calarasi , Lavinia Maria DUDU , Stelian ION, Ion BADEA, Gabi Graziela BALACI, Oana Cornelia GRADINARU, Craiova, Oprita Marioara DELIU, Ciupercenii Vechi , Petrisor GULIE , Mircea PRECUP , Nicoleta PRECUP, Craiova , Georgeta BEGEA, Bailesti

Represented by Radu Marinescu

24 February 2010 / Craiova Court of Appeal