LAURENȚIU-ȘTEFAN VEGH v. ROMANIA and 13 other applications
Doc ref: 13064/18, 13067/18, 13068/18, 13069/18, 13074/18, 13075/18, 13077/18, 13079/18, 13080/18, 24961/18, ... • ECHR ID: 001-202234
Document date: March 11, 2020
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 3 Outbound citations:
Communicated on 11 March 2020 Published on 30 March 2020
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 13064/18 Laurențiu-Ștefan VEGH against Romania and 13 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are former civil parties in the criminal proceedings concerning the National Fund of Investment (FNI) (see for further details concerning the factual background of the case, Albert and Others v. Romania , ( dec. ), 48006/11, 8 January 2013 and the follow-up case Murărașu v.Romania ( dec. ), no. 45733/10, 10 November 2015).
By the final judgment of 4 June 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held in favour of the applicants, establishing their right to receive damages from the State budget. The judgment remained unenforced to the present day in respect of a large number (a few thousand) of creditors.
Relying mainly on Article 6 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (with the exception of the applicant in application no. 57915/19, who relies also on Article 13 of the Convention), the applicants complain of the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
In respect of all applications
I n the circumstances of the present cases, is the non-enforcement of the outstanding judgment rendered in the applicants’ favour compatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Conventio n and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see for instance Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania , nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07 , 7 January 2014 and Murărașu v.Romania ( dec. ), no. 45733/10, 10 November 2015) ?
In respect of application no. 57915/19
Does the national law offer an effective remedy against the State’s failure to enforce the outstanding judgment given in the applicant’s favour, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Appendix
List of 14 applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1
13064/18
Laurențiu-Ștefan Vegh v. Romania
06/03/2018
Laurențiu-Ștefan VEGH
1971Hălchiu
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
2
13067/18
Karácsony v. Romania
06/03/2018
Jószef KARÁCSONY
1956Sfântu Gheoghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
3
13068/18
Fail v. Romania
07/03/2018
Enikő FAIL
1953Sfântu Gheoghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
4
13069/18
Ștefan Vegh v. Romania
07/03/2018
Ștefan VEGH
1938Sfântu Gheoghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
5
13074/18
Rodin -Attila Vegh v. Romania
07/03/2018
Rodin -Attila VEGH
1967Sfântu Gheoghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
6
13075/18
Katona v. Romania
07/03/2018
Margareta Emilia KATONA
1944Baraolt
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
7
13077/18
Kolumban v. Romania
07/03/2018
Carol KOLUMBÁN
1948Baraolt
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
8
13079/18
Diaconu v. Romania
07/03/2018
Ion DIACONU
1953Sfântu Gheoghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
9
13080/18
Kiss v. Romania
07/03/2018
Antal KISS
1952Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
10
24961/18
Szőcs-Biró and Horvath v. Romania
14/05/2018
Judit-Mária SZŐCS-BIRÓ
1979Târgu Secuiesc
Romanian
Venczel HORVÁTH
1947Sfântu Gheorghe
Romanian
Adrian MÃŽLCU
11
51299/19
Gheorghe v. Romania
24/09/2019
Mihaela GHEORGHE
1985București
Romanian
12
51346/19
Mircea Drăgan v. Romania
24/09/2019
Mircea DRĂGAN
1945București
Romanian
13
51365/19
Alexandru Drăgan v. Romania
24/09/2019
Alexandru DRĂGAN
1988București
Romanian
14
57915/19
Pretor v. Romania
26/11/2019
Georgeta PRETOR
1961București
Romanian