[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
AS
TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos.
898/06, 39374/07, 1161/08 and 36461/08
by Filofteia
CIOBANU and Others
against Romania
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 6 September 2011 as a Committee
composed of:
Ján
Šikuta,
President,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
regard to the above applications lodged on 24
April 1997, 3 September and 26 December 2007 and 24 July
2008,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
- The
details of the applicants and a summary of the facts of the cases as
submitted by the parties are indicated below.
- The
Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. The French Government, who were invited to submit
written observations in application no. 1161/08, chose not to
exercise that right (Article 36 § 1).
A. The circumstances of the cases
1. Application no. 898/06
- The
applicants, Ms Filofteia Ciobanu, Ms Maria Ciobanu and Ms Steliana
Ciobanu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1958, 1919 and 1956
and reside in Braşov and Predeal respectively.
- On
27 July 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal
allowed the complaint submitted by the first applicant against her
employer on 6 April 1994 and ordered her reinstatement in the
position she previously held together with the payment of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damages. On 6 March 2001 the High Court of Justice
upheld this judgment by a final decision.
- On
7 November and 2 December 2002 the employer sent to the first
applicant two letters inviting her to its headquarters with a copy of
the enforceable judgment and a formal request for reinstatement in
order to start the administrative formalities required for the
enforcement. The applicant refused to comply without offering any
particular reason.
- On
1 March 2004 the first applicant requested the courts to oblige her
former employer to pay damages for the delay in the enforcement of
the 27 July 2000 judgment. On 1 June 2004 the Braşov Court
of Appeal rejected the action deciding that no guilt could be held on
the employer’s side since the applicant refused to present
herself to her employer’s headquarters and fulfil the
formalities required by law. On 21 June 2005 the High Court of
Justice upheld this judgment by a final decision.
2. Application no. 39374/07
- The
applicant, Mr Traian Ciulică, is a Romanian national who was
born in 1956 and lives in Săftica, Romania. He is represented
before the Court by Mr Cristian Igreţ, a lawyer practising in
Bucharest.
- On
12 April 1990 the applicant signed with his employer, a state
institution subordinated to the Ilfov County Council, a rent contract
for an apartment until the termination of his employment.
- In
1997 the apartment was transferred in the administration of another
state institution which needed the space for a different purpose and
thus sent an eviction notification to the applicant.
- Refusing
to vacate the premises, in 2005 the applicant requested before
the courts the renewal of his rent contract. On 22 April 2005 the
Buftea District Court obliged the Ilfov County Council to renew the
applicant’s rent contract. On 23 November 2006 the Bucharest
Court of Appeal upheld this judgment by a final decision.
- By
a decision of 19 June 2007 the Ilfov County Council approved the
renewal of the applicant’s rent contract for a period of six
months. However, although he had been invited on several occasions,
the applicant did not present himself for signing the contract.
3. Application no. 1161/08
- The
applicant, Mr René Mérite, is a French national who was
born in 1948 and lives in Gevrey-Chambertin, France. He lodged the
application in respect to the domestic court proceedings mentioned
below in which his commercial company acted as a plaintiff.
- On
16 November 2004 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the civil
action submitted by the applicant’s company and obliged the
Ministry of European Integration to admit that the project submitted
by the applicant’s company within the framework of the PHARE
2001 programme met the eligibility criteria. On 23 May 2006 the High
Court of Justice upheld this judgment by a final decision.
- Despite
the applicant’s efforts, the judgment of 16 November 2004
remained non-enforced to date.
4. Application no. 36461/08
- The
applicant, Mr Gheorghe Cristescu, was a Romanian national who was
born on 8 July 1931. On 20 January 2010 the Court was informed that
the applicant had died in the course of 2009 and that his daughter,
Mihaela Despina Raceanu wanted to pursue the application as his legal
heir.
- On
28 May 2007 the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicant’s
action and obliged the Bucharest Department for Dialogue, Family and
Social Solidarity to issue a decision recognising the applicant’s
rights under Article 7 letter b of the Government Emergency Ordinance
no. 214/1999 (which provides for certain social security rights
in the benefit of persons who were persecuted by the communist
regime). The defendant was also obliged to pay the applicant
60,000,000 Romanian lei as damages. On 12 November 2007 the
Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment by a final decision.
- According
to the payment order submitted by the parties, on 6 October 2008
the applicant received the damages, indexed according to the
inflation rate at the date of the payment.
- The
judgment of 28 May 2007 was entirely enforced on 8 October 2008 when
the Bucharest Department for Dialogue, Family and Social Solidarity
issued the required decision.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
- The relevant domestic law
concerning the execution of final judgments, namely excerpts of the
Civil Procedure Code and Law no. 188/2000 on the powers and
functions of bailiffs, is summed up in the Court’s judgment in
the case of Topciov v. Romania
((dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicants complained of the non-enforcement or the excessive delays
in the enforcement of the final judgments given in their favour,
which infringed their rights under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention.
- The
applicants in applications nos. 898/06 and 1161/08 also complained of
the unfairness of the proceedings finalised with the judgments of 6
March 2001 and 23 May 2006 of the High Court of Justice as well as of
being discriminated against in the course of these proceedings. They
invoked Article 6 § 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14
of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the
Convention.
- The
applicants in application no. 898/06 further complained that, due to
the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 July
2000, they were subjected to torture and their right to private and
family life was violated in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the
Convention.
THE LAW
A. Complaints under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
concerning non-enforcement
- The
applicants alleged that the judgments issued in their favour
have not been enforced or have been enforced with an excessive delay.
They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention which,
in so far as relevant, 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.”
- The
Government rejected the allegations and submitted that as regards
applications nos. 898/06 and 39374/07 there was an objective
impossibility to enforce the judgments in the applicants’
favour due to the applicants’ conduct. Concerning application
no. 1161/08 the Government recalled that the Bucharest Court of
Appeal ordered in 2004 to declare eligible the project submitted by
the applicant’s company but within a PHARE programme which was
only operational in the course of 2001 and was completed at the end
of that year. Accordingly, there was an objective impossibility to
enforce the judgment three years after the termination of the said
programme. As regards application no. 36461/08 the Government
submitted that the judgment had been duly enforced.
- With
respect to application no. 898/06 the Court firstly notes that the
second and third applicants were not parties to the domestic
proceedings and therefore cannot claim to be victims in accordance
with Article 34 of the Convention. Further on, with respect to the
first applicant the Court notes that she was invited by her employer
to fulfil the formalities required by law for the enforcement of the
judgment in her favour but refused to do so. Moreover, the domestic
courts have already decided by the final judgment of 21 June 2005
that it was the first applicant’s conduct which led to the
impossibility to enforce the judgment under dispute. In the light of
all the material before it, the Court sees no reason to depart from
these findings of the domestic court in the present case.
- As
regards application no. 39374/07, the Court notes that the
applicant was invited to sign a renewal of his rent contract as
ordered by the judgment of 22 April 2005 but refused to do so.
Therefore, the Court agrees with the Government’s submission
and notes that it was the applicant’s conduct which led to an
objective impossibility of enforcing the judgment in his favour (see
Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece, no. 32141/04, § 27,
8 November 2007, and Bartoş v. Romania, no.
16287/03, § 30, 26 January 2010).
- As
regards application no. 1161/08, the Court agrees with the
Government’s submission and notes the existence of an objective
impossibility of enforcing the judgment of 16 November 2004.
- As
regards application no. 36461/08 the Court notes that it is not
necessary to decide whether the applicant’s legal heir has
locus standi to pursue the application since in any case the
judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced within a
reasonable delay of eleven months.
- In
view of the above, it follows that the
applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
B. Other complaints raised by the applicants in
applications nos. 898/06 and 1161/08
- Referring
to Articles 6 § 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of
the Convention as well as to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the
Convention and also to Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the
applicants further complained of other aspects related to the
proceedings finalised with the judgments of 6 March 2001 and 23 May
2006 of the High Court of Justice, respectively.
- However, having carefully
considered the applicants’ submissions 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.
- Therefore,
it follows that these parts of the applications nos. 898/06 and
1161/08 are also manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Jan Šikuta
Deputy Registrar President
