THIRD SECTION

CASE OF CÄ‚PITAN A ND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 16497/06, 43943/06, 5579/07, 35907/07, 30448/08, 32241/08, 43154/08, 1411/09, 3044/09, 16199/09, 29686/09, 23802/10, 43022/10, 1799/11 and 65420/11)

JUDGMENT

This judgment was revised in accordance wit h Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 23 June 2016.

STRASBOURG

19 May 2015

This judgment is final . It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Căpitan and O thers v. Romania ,

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

Ján Šikuta , President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc , Branko Lubarda , judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 21 April 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in fifteen applications (nos. 16497/06, 43943/06, 5579/07, 35907/07, 30448/08, 32241/08, 43154/08, 1411/09, 3044/09, 16199/09, 29686/09, 23802/10, 43022/10, 1799/11 and 65420/11) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian companies and fourteen Romanian nationals. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application are specified in the appended table.

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

3 . In accordance with Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent Government, the applications were assigned to a Committee of three Judges.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

4 . On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered 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. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

5 . The relevant domestic legal provisions and procedures 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).

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

6 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them in a single judgment.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1

7 . The applicants complained that the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the final judgments rendered in their favour had infringed their right to access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also their right to property as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Insofar as relevant, these Articles read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

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

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.”

8 . The Court notes that the judgments in the present cases ordered the relevant authorities to execute various obligations in kind or to pay the applicants certain amounts of money.

9 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present applications (see for instance the Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu , cited above, § 78, and all the references therein).

10 . Its respective case-law is based on the principle that the right to a court 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).

11 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the present cases.

12 . Therefore, taking into account the complexity of the enforcement, the parties ’ behaviour and the nature of the awards, the Court finds that the authorities have not deployed all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the judgments in the applicants ’ favour.

13 . The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all applications.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION

14 . The applicants in applications nos . 35907/07, 1411/09, 3044/09 and 29686/09 also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

15 . However, in the light of all 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 or its Protocols.

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

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 46 AND 41 OF THE CONVENTION

A. Article 46 of the Convention

17 . Article 46 of the Convention provides:

“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.”

18 . In the light of its conclusions in respect of Article 46 of the Convention in the case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu (cited above, §§ 75-84), the Court considers that the Government must secure, by appropriate means, the full enforcement of the judgments which are still outstanding.

B. Article 41 of the Convention

19 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

20 . When fixing the amounts to be awarded under this provision, the Court shall take due account of the fact that some applicants (see applications nos. 30448/08, 43154/08, 16199/09 and 23802/10) have not submitted any pertinent just satisfaction claims, while others (see applications nos. 16497/06, 5579/07, 32241/08, 3044/09 and 43022/10) have either made no claims for costs and expenses or have not submitted any relevant supporting documents.

21 . R egard being had to the documents in its possession and its case law (see the Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu , cited above, §§ 90 -91 ), the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses the sums indicated in the appended table.

22 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares admissible the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of the judgments in respect of all applications and the remainder of applications nos . 35907/07, 1411/09, 3044/09 and 29686/09 inadmissible;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the judgments which are still outstanding;

(b) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(c) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 May 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no. and date of introduction

Applicant name

date of birth

Relevant domestic decision

Length of enforcement proceedings

Article 41

(EUR)

16497/06

17/03/2006

Marcel Ioan CÄ‚PITAN

08/01/1963

Decision of 12 March 2004, the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal

10 years and 10 months

pending

Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600

Costs and expenses: no award

43943/06

19/07/2006

Cosmin Adrian ENE

30/07/1971

Decision of 11 October 2004, the Bucharest District Court

3 years and 8 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 1,778

Costs and expenses: 150

5579/07

13/12/2006

Nicolae TOADER

13/11/1952

Decision of 15 March 2005, the Prahova County Court

2 years and 5 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 1,600

Costs and expenses: no award

35907/07

08/08/2007

Viorica GHILAȘ

04/04/1948

Decision of 2 November 1998, the Bucharest Court of Appeal

10 years and 5 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600

Costs and expenses: 300

30448/08

13/06/2008

Tinca ALEXANDRU

21/04/1943

Decision of 2 November 1998, the Bucharest Court of Appeal

10 years and 5 months

Non-pecuniary damage: no award

Costs and expenses: no award

32241/08

24/06/2008

Sylvia LEIBOVICI

22/04/1936

Decision of 15 March 2005, the Bucharest District Court,

final on 22 September 2005

5 years and 8 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700

Costs and expenses: no award

43154/08

02/09/2008

S.C. PROSIM S.R.L.

26/07/1996

Decision of 29 September 2006, the Bucharest District Court,

final on 9 February 2007

7 years and 11 months

pending

Non-pecuniary damage: no award

Costs and expenses: no award

1411/09

22/12/2008

S.C. KYO INC S.R.L.

Decision of 3 August 2007, the Satu Mare County Court

1 year and 4 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 600

Costs and expenses: 250

3044/09

23/12/2008

Adrian Alexandru NICULESCU

Decision of 11 April 2006, the Bucharest Court of Appeal,

final on 26 January 2007

8 years

pending

Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700

Costs and expenses: no award

16199/09

17/03/2009

1. Romeo Viorel POPESCU

24/08/1939

2. Sandina DINCÄ‚

07/09/1949

a) decision of 2 November 2006, the Ploiești Court of Appeal

b) decision of 11 May 2007, the Prahova County Court,

final on 18 September 2007

8 years and 2 months

pending

7 years and 4 months

pending

Non-pecuniary damage: no award

Costs and expenses: no award

29686/09

24/05/2009

Ioan HANDREA

03/07/1961

Decision of 22 May 2008, the Cluj Court of Appeal,

final on 3 December 2008

6 years and 1 month

pending

Non-pecuniary damage: 2,500

Costs and expenses: 500

23802/10

21/04/2010

Ioan PETRACHI

13/07/1937

Decision of 3 December 2008, the Iasi County Court,

final on 16 March 2009

2 years and 4 months

Non-pecuniary damage: no award

Costs and expenses: no award

43022/10

16/06/2010

Florian S ÃŽRBU

09/08/1971

Decision of 11 November 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice

2 years and 6 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 2,000

Costs and expenses: no award

1799/11

06/12/2010

George Laurențiu PREDA

22/11/1971

Decision of 13 April 2009, the Târgu Jiu Court of First Instance,

final on 19 May 2009

5 years and 8 months

pending

Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600

Costs and expenses: 430

65420/11

06/10/2011

Alexandru BÄ‚DULESCU

12/06/1948

Decisions of 16 October 2007, the Bucharest District Court,

final on 21 March 2008

3 years and 4 months

Non-pecuniary damage: 2,300

Costs and expenses: 1,070