THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IGNĂTESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 32168/05, 30403/06, 12522/08, 62989/10, 6898/11, 14566/11, 20656/11, 54593/11, 57508/11 and 59238/11)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 March 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ignătescu and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Dragoljub Popović, President,
	Kristina Pardalos,
	Valeriu Griţco, 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. 32168/05, 30403/06, 12522/08, 62989/10, 6898/11, 14566/11, 20656/11, 54593/11, 57508/11 and 59238/11) 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 thirteen 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 C. 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 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.
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 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 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 (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.
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 VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION
13.  In application no. 57508/11 the second applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome of a criminal proceeding brought against him.
14.  The Court notes that the applicant failed to challenge the prosecutor’s decision before the national district court. Consequently, this part of the application must be dismissed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 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 makes no award for non-pecuniary damage and cost and expenses in respect of application no. 30403/06 and no award for costs and expenses in respect of applications nos. 12522/08, 62989/10, 6898/11 and 20656/11, since those applicants either made no claims in that respect or they did not submit any relevant supporting documents.
18.  The Court further notes that the Government must secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgments which are still outstanding.
19.  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 application no. 57508/11 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 17 March 2015, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Marialena Tsirli	Dragoljub Popović
	Deputy Registrar	President

No.	Application no. and
date of introduction	Applicant name
date of birth	Relevant domestic decision	Length of enforcement proceedings	Article 41
(EUR)	
1.		32168/05
31/08/2005	Mariana IGNĂTESCU
15/08/1946	Decision of 5 November 2002, the Suceava County Court 	11 years and 4 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: 500	
2.		30403/06
18/07/2006	Carol Ladislau BOD
08/08/1932

Margareta BOD
13/09/1935

Irina Magda BENDE
29/05/1931

Marianna Eva SZIGETI
09/03/1963	Decision of 21 December 2004, the Târgu Mureș Court of Appeal	9 years and 7 months
pending 	Non-pecuniary damage:
no award
Costs and expenses: no award 	
3.		12522/08
28/02/2008	Gheorghe MRAIȘTE
18/01/1936	Decision of 27 March 2007, the Cluj-Napoca District Court (final on 29 August 2007)	7 years and 1 month
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: no award	
4.		62989/10
22/10/2010	Emima Lia ANTON
10/07/1923	Decision of 13 February 2008, the Cluj-Napoca District Court (final on 11 September 2008) 	5 years and 8 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: no award	
5.		6898/11
11/01/2011	Constantin PISTOL
27/05/1947

Piculina PISTOL
15/03/1952	Decision of 14 February 2000, the Oravița District Court (final on 20 November 2000)	13 years and 10 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: no award	
6.		14566/11
22/02/2011	Margareta PANIS
26/09/1933	Decision of 20 October 2004, the Bucharest District Court (final on 9 January 2006)	8 years and 9 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: 2,000	
7.		20656/11
22/02/2011	Constantin CIUMAŞU
24/06/1951

Maria CIUMAŞU
unknown	Decision of 2 March 2007, the Neamţ County Court (final on 2 May 2007)	7 years and 7 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,600
Costs and expenses: no award	
8.		54593/11
18/08/2011	S.C. ECOLOGICAL CENTER S.A.
14/08/2002	Decision of 12 August 2009, the Constanţa County Court (final on 28 January 2010)	4 years and 8 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 3,000
Costs and expenses: 2,500	
9.		57508/11
23/08/2011	S.C. KYO INC S.R.L.
13/03/2006

Răzvan
NICOLAE-MICUL
07/06/1983	Decision of 7 April 2010, the Braşov County Court (final on 21 July 2010)	2 years and 1 month	Non-pecuniary damage: 1,200
Costs and expenses: 400	
10.		59238/11
08/09/2011	Nicolae ACCELEANU
13/02/1960	Decision of 8 September 2010, the Constanța Court of Appeal (final on 6 May 2011)	3 years and 5 months
pending	Non-pecuniary damage: 1,800
Costs and expenses: 180