FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF BE\u015eLEAG\u0102 AND VANKAY v. ROMANIA
\n(Applications nos. 35723\/03 and 45096\/09)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 February 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Be\u015fleag\u0103and Vankayv. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Georges Ravarani, President, Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of the Protocol No.\u00a01 concerning the non-enforcement of domestic judgments were communicated to the Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d). In application no. 45096\/09 the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 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 (Be\u0219leag\u0103 and Others v. Romania, no. 35723\/03 and 3 other applications).<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 35723\/03<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 September 2000 the Neam\u021b County Court ordered a state\u2011owned company to pay the applicant due salary rights.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 October 2001 the Roman District Court ordered a private person to reimburse a loan to the applicant.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 45096\/09<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 November 2008 the Bra\u0219ov County Court ordered the municipality of Bra\u0219ov to leavea plot of land in the applicant\u2019s full property and possession.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 July 2008 the applicant contracted a loan of 250,000 euros (EUR) from a bank, with the plot of land used as guarantee.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE\u00a01 OF PROTOCOL No.\u00a01<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Both applicants complain of the non-enforcement of the judgments given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and on Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01, which read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n Article 1 of Protocol No. 1<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cEvery 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.<\/p>\n 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.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 35723\/03<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a \u201ctrial\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a06. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v.\u00a0Greece, no.\u00a018357\/91, \u00a7\u00a040, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997\u2011II).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In 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.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 \u201cpossession\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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\u2019s favour.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0In 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 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Application no. 45096\/09<\/strong><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s complaint about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 14\u00a0November 2008 is inadmissible for the reasons stated below.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In particular, in view of the report which the applicant signed on 3\u00a0April 2009 and the subsequent developments (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) the Court considers that the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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, \u015eerb\u0103nescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 43638\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 9-10, 1 December 2016).<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u00a034 and\u00a035 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.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, the Court finds that this application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 and\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the domestic judgment of 25\u00a0September 2000 in application no. 35723\/03 has remained unenforced to date. The State\u2019s 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\u2019s favour (see P\u0103\u0219coi and Others v. Romania, nos. 8675\/06 and 7\u00a0others, \u00a7 18, 7 January 2016).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that in application 35723\/03\u00a0the applicant failed to submit his just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. \u00a0Accordingly, the Court does not award any sum as just satisfaction.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 September 2000 of the Neam\u021b CountyCourtadmissible, and the remainder of the application no. 35723\/03, as well as application no.\u00a045096\/09, inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment of 25 September 2000 in application no.\u00a035723\/03;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the outstanding judgment of 25\u00a0September 2000 of the Neam\u021b CountyCourtin application no.\u00a035723\/03.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Georges Ravarani<\/p>\n Acting Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1<\/p>\n (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)<\/p>\n Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Length of enforcement proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 29\/08\/2003<\/td>\n 06\/09\/1944<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Roman District Court, 05\/06\/2001<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 09\/10\/2001<\/p>\n <\/td>\n More than 17 years and 2 months and 17\u00a0days<\/p>\n <\/p>\n pending<\/p>\n More than 16 years and 2 months and 3\u00a0days<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 03\/06\/2009<\/td>\n 19\/06\/1973<\/p>\n <\/p>\n represented by Dan Iosif, a lawyer practising in Bra\u0219ov<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n 2 months<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9terPaczolay, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Relevant domestic decision<\/strong><\/td>\n Start date of non-enforcement period<\/strong><\/td>\n End date of non-enforcement period<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 35723\/03<\/p>\n IoanBe\u015fleag\u0103<\/strong><\/p>\n Neam\u021b County Court, 25\/09\/2000<\/p>\n 25\/09\/2000<\/p>\n pending<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 45096\/09<\/p>\n LadislauVankay<\/strong><\/p>\n Bra\u0219ov District Court, 14\/11\/2008<\/p>\n 03\/02\/2009<\/p>\n 03\/04\/2009<\/p>\n