European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF CÂRSTINA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

 

(Application no. 61902/12 and 4 others -

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

8 June 2017

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Cârstina and Others v. Romania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
          Iulia Motoc,
          Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Karen Reid, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 May 2017,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1

6.  The applicants complained principally of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which 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.”

7.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).

8.  In the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

10.  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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  In application no. 517/16, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in view of its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see paragraphs 10-11 above), as well as of the details set out in the appended table, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  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.”

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

16.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 the complaints concerning the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible, and the remainder of application no. 517/16 inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;

 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  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 8 June 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

       Karen Reid                                                           Vincent A. De Gaetano
         Registrar                                                                         President




 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1

(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

 

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration	Representative name and location	Relevant domestic decision	Start date of non-enforcement period	End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[1]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]
1.	61902/12 19/09/2012	Catalina Cârstina Born: 13/01/1934; deceased: 26/11/2013; Proceedings pursued by heir Gheorghe Cîrstina, born on 23/01/1956		Slatina Court of First Instance, 04/03/2011	31/05/2011	17/10/2012 1 year and 4 months and 18 days	600
2.	55556/13 19/07/2013	Răzvan Ovidiu Mizgar 04/08/1977	Oana Cristina Șerban Timișoara	Timiș County Court, domestic case file no. 250/59/2012, 22/02/2012	26/04/2012	02/03/2015 2 years and 10 months and 5 days	1,500	400
3.	58178/14 27/07/2014	Maria Marchidann 01/09/1943		Bucharest County Court, domestic case file no. 7032/302/2008, 15/04/2010	15/04/2010	10/11/2014 4 years and 6 months and 27 days	3,000	200
4.	39257/15 25/08/2015	Petrița Ionașcu 19/06/1966		Bucharest County Court, domestic case file no. 13368/3/2012, 25/09/2013	15/04/2014	10/09/2015 1 year and 4 months and 27 days	800
5.	517/16 27/11/2015	S.C. Energii Alternative S.R.L. 12/04/2007	Richard Turbatu Berlin	Constanța County Court, domestic case file no. 2179/118/2008, 30/05/2008	10/11/2008	23/01/2014 5 years and 2 months and 14 days (obligation to issue a town planning certificate)   More than 6 months and 7 days pending (obligation to pay the delayed enforcement penalties)	3,600

 




---

[1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.