THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VLAD AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 21386/02, 22030/05, 30830/08, 25855/09, 40992/10, 45172/10, 13537/13, 27928/13, 31279/13 and 46681/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 March 2015

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

In the case of Vlad and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Ján Šikuta, President,
	Dragoljub Popović,
	Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in ten applications (nos. 21386/02, 22030/05, 30830/08, 25855/09, 40992/10, 45172/10, 13537/13, 27928/13, 31279/13 and 46681/13) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by ten Romanian nationals. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging and the date of communication to the Government 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
Article I.	I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
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.
Article II.	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
Article III.	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.
Article IV.	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 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 case 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, holding that binding and enforceable judgments against State authorities, whether requiring monetary payments or specific performance, must be executed ex officio and promptly (see for instance the Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu, cited above, §§ 78, 83 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.
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.
12.  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.
Article V.	III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
13.  Some of the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
14.  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.
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.
Article VI.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15.  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.”
16.  Regard 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 sums indicated in the appended table.
17.  The Court further considers that the Government must secure, by appropriate means, the full enforcement of the judgments which are still outstanding.
18.  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.  Dismisses the Government’s preliminary objections,

3.  Declares admissible the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments in respect of all applications and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

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

5.  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;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 March 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Marialena Tsirli	Ján Šikuta
Deputy Registrar	President

No.	Application
no.
Date of introduction
Date of communication to the Government	Applicant name
Date of birth	Relevant domestic decision	Length of enforcement proceedings	Article 41
(EUR)	
1.		21386/02
30/07/2001
30/03/2009
	Tiberiu VLAD
13/06/1932	Decision of 7 October 2002,
Buzău Court of First Instance	1 year and 4 months
	Non-pecuniary damage: 600
Costs and expenses: 5	
2.		22030/05
28/04/2005
17/10/2011
	Ion POPOVICI
22/02/1948	Decision of 30 March 2004,
Caraş-Severin County Court,
final on 30 June 2004 	10 years and 5 months
pending
	Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700
Costs and expenses: - 	
3.		30830/08
16/06/2008
10/04/2012
	Teodora Gabriela SANDU
14/10/1959	Decision of 10 October 2007, Bucharest County Court,
final on 21 January 2008	6 years and 10 months
pending (monetary payment)	Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700
Costs and expenses: - 	
4.		25855/09
29/04/2009
10/04/2012	Vasile SOFRONI
22/02/1940	Decision of 17 October 2002, Maramureş County Court,
final on 21 January 2003	7 years and 4 months	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,318
Costs and expenses: 780
	
5.		40992/10
07/07/2010
10/04/2012	S.C. AGROMEC S.A. FRUMUŞICA	Decision of 22 March 2006,
Suceava Court of Appeal,
final on 17 October 2006	8 years and 1 month
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: 450
	
6.		45172/10
23/07/2010
10/04/2012	Nicolae LUŢU
16/02/1943	Decision of 17 February 2009,
Galaţi County Court,
final on 28 January 2010	4 years and 10 months
pending (monetary payment)	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,900
Costs and expenses: 750
	
7.		13537/13
13/02/2013
14/02/2014	Ligia Victoria MANDA
08/08/1958	Decision of 18 January 2008, Craiova Court of First Instance, final on 5 November 2008	3 years and 8 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 2,000
Costs and expenses: 75
	
8.		27928/13
17/04/2013
14/02/2014
	Mihail GRIGORE
17/12/1929	Decision of 18 April 2007,
Răcari Court of First Instance	6 years and 9 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: - 	
9.		31279/13
29/04/2013
14/02/2014	Georgeta IANĂȘ
01/01/1958	Decision of 19 November 2007, Mehedinţi County Court,
final on 8 April 2008;

Decision of 8 December 2009, Mehedinţi County Court,
final on 7 May 2010
	6 years and 8 months
pending (monetary payment)

2 years and 1 month	Non-pecuniary damage: 4,700
Costs and expenses: - 	
10.		46681/13
01/07/2013
14/02/2014
	Elena BULIGA
06/06/1962	Decision of 22 March 2011,
Timiş County Court,
final on 28 March 2012	2 years and 6 months	Non-pecuniary damage: 1,100
Costs and expenses: -