Communicated on 18 December 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 55365/09 S.C. S.E.A.C.I.D. S.R.L . against Romania lodged on 8 October 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, S.C. S.E.A.C.I.D. S.R.L., is a Romanian company having its registered headquarters in BraÈ™ ov . It is represented before the Court by Mr N.O. Curelea , a lawyer practising in Craiova.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.

On 2 February 2008 the applicant company entered into a contract with a public local authority ( comuna Aita Mare ) for supply of IT services and equipment.

Following the execution of its contractual obligations, the applicant company issued invoices, the first payment being due on 20 April 2008. The local authority refused to pay invoking that the requested sum had not been yet allocated in the yearly budget.

The applicant company lodged an action seeking to compel the local authority to return the price of equipment and services not paid by the local authority, plus interest. The applicant company based its action on Government Emergency Ordinance no. 119/2007 aimed to facilitate urgent debt recovery arising from commercial transactions.

On 7 July 2008 the Brasov District Court allowed the applicant company ’ s claim and ordered the local authority to pay 1,811.9 Romanian lei (“RON”) (approximately 45 euros (EUR)) and delay penalties amounting to RON 181 (approximately EUR 45) for each day of delay. It set a term of payment of twenty days.

The decision became final and binding as the local authority had not lodged an action for the annulment of the payment order.

As the local authority refused the payment of its debt, the applicant company sent the order to a bailiff.

On 27 April 2009 the bailiff sent a notification to the Covasna Public Finance Department and requested the seizure of the funds of the local authority existent in the State Treasury ’ s account administered by the Covasna Public Finance Department.

The bailiff had to discontinue the enforcement proceedings as the Public Finance Department replied that the legal requirements for the seizure of its funds were not met and that the proceedings should be halted for six months.

On 13 May 2009, the applicant compa ny lodged an action with the Sfâ ntu Gheorghe District Court seeking the validation of the bailiff ’ s request for the seizure of the funds belonging to the local authority. The Covasna Public Finance Department filed a statement in its defence arguing that according to Government Ordinance no. 22/2002, a creditor of a public institution must stay the enforcement proceedings for six months after the payment order is notified by the bailiff.

On 8 September 2009 the district court allowed the applicant company ’ s action and ordered the Covasna Public Finance Department to comply with the seizure measures asked by the bailiff for the enforcement of the final decision of 7 July 2008.

On 1 October 2009 the Covasna Public Finance Department lodged an appeal on points of law.

On 15 December 2009 the Covasna County Court allowed the appeal on points of law and dismissed the applicant company ’ s request for the enforcement of the final decision. It held that the seizure order communicated by the bailiff had not stated expressis verbis that the Public Finance Department had the obligation not to release any funds from the accounts of the local authority for any other purpose or destination except for satisfying the applicant company ’ s debt. It also stated that such situation should be sanctioned by the annulment of the seizure order and all the previous and subsequent proceedings undertaken by the bailiff on behalf of the applicant company.

According to the latest information submitted by the applicant company on 26 April 2010 the final judgment of 7 July 2008 has not been enforced.

B. Relevant domestic law

Government Emergency Ordinance No. 119/2007 on necessary measures to combat delays in performance of payments resulted from commercial contracts („ GEO 119/2007 ”) was enacted in order to ensure the compliance of Romanian law with Directive 2000/35/CE on combating payment delays in commercial transactions adopted by the European Union on 29 June 2000 (“ Directive 2000/35/CE ”).

GEO 119/2007 expressly regulates recovery of debts resulted from any commercial transactions, irrespective of the fact that such transactions were concluded between private or public companies or authorities.

Article 12 provides that the debt recovery procedure shall not exceed 90 calendar days from the day the creditor ’ s request was filed with the competent court. Moreover, the debtor is entitled to only one remedy at law, i.e. the annulment action against the payment order; however, such action shall not suspend payment prescribed under court law. The failure of the debtor to file a motion of defense may be considered by the court as an acknowledgement of the creditor ’ s claim.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant company complains that the authorities ’ prolonged failure to comply with the binding and enforceable judgment of 7 July 2008 in its favour violated its right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been any interference with the applicant company ’ s right of access to a court on account of the non-execution of the final judgment rendered in its favour ?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant company ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?