Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BEŞLEAGĂ AND VANKAY v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 35723/03 and 45096/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 February 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Beşleagăand Vankayv. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
PéterPaczolay, judges,
and LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,
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 dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). In application no. 45096/09 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
3. On 8 February 2018 a committee of three judges of the Court adopted a judgment in a group of four cases which included the current two applications (Beșleagă and Others v. Romania, no. 35723/03 and 3 other applications).
4. On 7 June 2018 the same committee decided to reopen the proceedings in the current two applications following a request by the Government submitted on 8 February 2018. The parties were informed accordingly.
THE FACTS
5. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
A. Application no. 35723/03
6. On 25 September 2000 the Neamț County Court ordered a state‑owned company to pay the applicant due salary rights.
7. On 9 October 2001 the Roman District Court ordered a private person to reimburse a loan to the applicant.
B. Application no. 45096/09
8. On 14 November 2008 the Brașov County Court ordered the municipality of Brașov to leavea plot of land in the applicant’s full property and possession.
9. On 3 April 2009 the applicant signed a report, drafted on the occasion of the compulsory enforcement of the above judgment, which attested to the restoration of his possession over the land in dispute by placement of metal bars on the free area and by tracing a line with white paint over the area occupied by roads and bridge pillars belonging to the municipality.
10. On 18 July 2008 the applicant contracted a loan of 250,000 euros (EUR) from a bank, with the plot of land used as guarantee.
11. On 22 August 2011 the bank sold the land at a public auction for EUR 325,000, since the applicant had failed to repay the loan within the set deadline. In accordance with domestic law, the remaining amount after the recovery of the debt must be returned to the debtor.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
12. 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
13. Both applicants complain of the non-enforcement of the judgments 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.”
A. Application no. 35723/03
14. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “trial” 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).
15. 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.
16. The Court further notes that the judgment of 25 September 2000 ordered a state-owned company to pay the applicant due salary rights. The Court therefore considers that the judgment in question constitutes “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
17. 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 judgment in the applicant’s favour.
18. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
19. The applicant also complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 9 October 2001 ordering a private person to reimburse a loan to him.
20. The Court notes that the applicant failed to make appropriate use of the available domestic legal avenues and to comply with all the procedural and substantial requirements of the domestic law, namely he failed to challenge the liquidator’s final report and he did not lodge a complaint against the bailiff for an alleged refusal to assist him with the enforcement (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33273/03, 22 March 2005).
21. In view of the above, the Court finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Application no. 45096/09
22. Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 14 November 2008 is inadmissible for the reasons stated below.
23. In particular, in view of the report which the applicant signed on 3 April 2009 and the subsequent developments (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) the Court considers that the applicant’s possession over the land in question had been in fact restored on the date of the above-mentioned report. The Court therefore notes that the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced within 2 months. Taking into account the conduct of the applicant as well as the conduct of the authorities, the Court concludes that the period in question is not excessive and thus does not raise an arguable claim under the Convention (see, for example, Şerbănescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638/10, §§ 9-10, 1 December 2016).
24. The applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
25. The Court has examined them and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
26. In view of the above, the Court finds that this application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. 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.”
28. The Court notes that the domestic judgment of 25 September 2000 in application no. 35723/03 has remained unenforced to date. The State’s obligation to enforce this judgment is not in dispute. Therefore, the Court considers that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to secure, by appropriate means, enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment in the applicant’s favour (see Pășcoi and Others v. Romania, nos. 8675/06 and 7 others, § 18, 7 January 2016).
29. The Court further notes that in application 35723/03 the applicant failed to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum as just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 September 2000 of the Neamț CountyCourtadmissible, and the remainder of the application no. 35723/03, as well as application no. 45096/09, inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment of 25 September 2000 in application no. 35723/03;
3. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the outstanding judgment of 25 September 2000 of the Neamț CountyCourtin application no. 35723/03.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
LivTigerstedt Georges Ravarani
Acting Deputy 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’s name
Date of birth
|
Relevant domestic decision | Start date of non-enforcement period | End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings |
| 1. | 35723/03
29/08/2003 |
IoanBeşleagă
06/09/1944 |
Neamț County Court, 25/09/2000
Roman District Court, 05/06/2001
|
25/09/2000
09/10/2001
|
pending
More than 17 years and 2 months and 17 days
pending More than 16 years and 2 months and 3 days
|
| 2. | 45096/09
03/06/2009 |
LadislauVankay
19/06/1973
represented by Dan Iosif, a lawyer practising in Brașov
|
Brașov District Court, 14/11/2008
|
03/02/2009
|
03/04/2009
2 months
|
Leave a Reply