The present case concerns the non-enforcement of an outstanding judgment given in the applicants\u2019 favour in their capacity as former civil parties in criminal proceedings against the National Fund of Investment. It raises issues under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Vegh and Others v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications (nos. 13064\/18, 13067\/18, 13068\/18, 13069\/18, 13074\/18, 13075\/18, 13077\/18, 13079\/18, 13080\/18, 24961\/18, 51299\/19, 51346\/19, 51365\/19 and 57915\/19) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by fourteen Romanian nationals, whose names are listed in the appended table, on the various dates indicated in the appended table;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice to the Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgments given in the applicants\u2019 favour and the lack of effective remedies in that respect;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The present case concerns the non-enforcement of an outstanding judgment given in the applicants\u2019 favour in their capacity as former civil parties in criminal proceedings against the National Fund of Investment. It raises issues under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicants\u2019 details are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, most recently Ms\u00a0O.\u00a0Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n I. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE<\/p>\n 4. The factual and legal circumstances set out in the present applications are similar to those pertaining to the applicants in Albert and Others v.\u00a0Romania ((dec.), no. 48006\/11, 8 January 2013) and in the follow-up case Mur\u0103ra\u0219u v.Romania ((dec.), no. 45733\/10, 10 November 2015).<\/p>\n 5. In short, the applicants are former civil parties in the criminal proceedings concerning the National Investment Fund (Fondul Na\u021bional de Investi\u021bii \u2013 \u201cthe FNI\u201d; for a detailed presentation of that investment fund\u2011type entity, see Albert and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 3-9).<\/p>\n 6. By a final judgment of 4 June 2009, the High Court of Cassation and Justice held in the applicants\u2019 favour, establishing their right to receive damages to be paid from the State budget. That judgment has remained unenforced to the present day in respect of a large number of creditors, including the applicants in the present case (for relevant details of those proceedings, see Albert and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 14-18).<\/p>\n II. INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE AUTHORITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE ASSETS<\/p>\n 7. The Government submitted that out of a total of approximately 160,000\u00a0creditors, as established by twenty-three civil judgments and eight criminal judgments given in proceedings involving the FNI, more than 18,400 had already received their payments, amounting to approximately 428,000,000\u00a0lei (RON \u2013 approximately 94,000,000 euros (EUR)).<\/p>\n 8. Having regard to the payment requests which had been made by the time the Government\u2019s observations were submitted to the Court, the total amount of money owed to the FNI creditors was RON\u00a0345,017,000 (around EUR\u00a075,000,000).<\/p>\n 9. The Government contended that the relevant State authority, namely the Authority for the Management of State Assets (AAAS), had been making serious efforts to continue paying the outstanding debts to the FNI individual creditors, in spite of the increasing financial difficulties it was encountering on account of the high amounts to be paid and the lack of financing to cover them. In that connection, several legislative proposals and action plans aiming to implement concrete measures for the financing and repayment, including by instalments, of the outstanding debts had been formulated and submitted to the relevant ministries from 2017 onwards; however, none of the proposals had been adopted and no alternative has been put forward to the present day.<\/p>\n 10. The AAAS submitted that, because all their efforts to launch a ministerial discussion aiming to find solutions for the complex issue raised by the payment of such large amounts of money which exceeded their budget had remained completely unsuccessful, any possibility for them to continue repaying the FNI creditors had been fully impaired.<\/p>\n RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n 11. The relevant background domestic law and practice in relation to the special measures for the enforcement of claims such as those submitted by the applicants (FNI creditors) are set out in Albert and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a040\u201145) and Mur\u0103ra\u0219u (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 12-14).<\/p>\n 12. Concerning in particular the publication of specific information to the attention of all FNI creditors on the AAAS website, as presented in Mur\u0103ra\u0219u (cited above, \u00a7 15), it is to be noted that at present there is no concrete information available as to the payment status, the number of creditors, or the amounts already paid or waiting to be paid in the relevant proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 13. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule\u00a042\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n II. LOCUS STANDI<\/p>\n 14. The heirs of the applicant in application no. 13069\/18 informed the Court of that applicant\u2019s death and, as his close relatives, expressed their intention to pursue the application in his stead. The Government did not object to this. Having regard to the close family ties and the heirs\u2019 legitimate interest in pursuing the application, the Court accepts that the deceased applicant\u2019s heirs may pursue the application in his stead (see, among other authorities, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508\/07 and 29520\/09, \u00a7 101, ECHR 2013). It will therefore continue to deal with this application at the heirs\u2019 request (see the appended table for details).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION and of article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention<\/p>\n 15. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 4 June 2009 given in their favour in proceedings in which they had been civil parties against the FNI. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which in their relevant parts read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 6<\/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<\/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. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. The Court notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill\u2011founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The parties\u2019 submissions<\/em><\/p>\n (a) The Government<\/p>\n 17. The Government argued that the complexity and the specificity of the present case called for a particular approach which would take into consideration the atypical issues raised by it. Indeed, the Court itself had emphasised in Albert and Others and Mur\u0103ra\u0219u (both cited above) that the context generated by the collapse of the FNI had put the State in a difficult situation, thus justifying certain delays in the enforcement of the final judgments in the claimants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 18. While acknowledging that the applicants had not received any payment yet, the Government concluded that the authorities had been making concrete efforts in good faith to comply with their obligations towards all the FNI creditors, including the applicants.<\/p>\n (b) The applicants<\/p>\n 19. The applicants submitted that almost twenty years after they had launched proceedings against the FNI, and several years after the Court had adopted its decision in Mur\u0103ra\u0219u (cited above), their claims had still not been satisfied and had no prospects of being satisfied.<\/p>\n 2. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n (a) General principles<\/p>\n 20. The Court notes that the principles relevant to the present complaints are set out in, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia (no.\u00a02) (no.\u00a033509\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 65-70, ECHR 2009), Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania (nos. 2699\/03 and 43597\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 55-60, 7 January 2014), Albert and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a048\u201152) and Mur\u0103ra\u0219u (cited above, \u00a7 25).<\/p>\n (b) Application of those principles to the present case<\/p>\n 21. The issue at stake in the present case has already been the subject of the Court\u2019s examination (see paragraphs 4-6 and 11 above). At the relevant time, it found in two decisions, Albert and Others and Mur\u0103ra\u0219u (both cited above) that, in view of the complexity of the legal and factual circumstances underlying the applicants\u2019 claims, the as yet unclarified but very high number of creditors and the domestic authorities\u2019 efforts to continue the repayment of the outstanding debts, the atypical, even if prolonged, non\u2011enforcement complained of did not disclose an appearance of a violation of the right of access to court under Article 6 of the Convention nor of the right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Albert and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 53-58, and Mur\u0103ra\u0219u, cited above, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n 22. The Court notes, however, that since the adoption of the above\u2011mentioned decisions in 2013 and 2015, respectively, several important elements on which it based its assessment of those cases have changed.<\/p>\n 23. In that regard, a much clearer picture concerning the total number of creditors and the total amount of the outstanding debt appears to have been given; indeed, the Government indicated concrete numbers and statistics in that respect (see paragraph 7-8 above).<\/p>\n 24. While noting that, regrettably, that concrete factual information is not available on the relevant domestic authority\u2019s website (see paragraph\u00a012 above), the Court nevertheless considers the clarification of the general picture concerning the amount of debt as well as the number of creditors to be beneficial; however, such clarification does not appear to be sufficient, having regard to the fact that the authority liable to pay the outstanding debts submitted, both before the domestic ministerial authorities and before the Court, that it lacked the necessary funds to continue repaying the established creditors, and that no action plan, alternative proposals or legislative solutions capable of offering an acceptable solution had been put forward (see paragraphs 9-10 above).<\/p>\n 25. The Court therefore notes that, notwithstanding the conclusions it has previously reached (see paragraph 21 above), and which relied on the essential criterion that, at the relevant time, the State had been making concrete efforts to continue the payments to those entitled to them, at present \u2013 that is, more than twelve years after the outstanding judgment had acknowledged the applicants\u2019 enforceable claims (see paragraph 6 above) \u2013 there appears to be no foreseeable prospect of those claims being awarded to them.<\/p>\n 26. In that connection, the Court must reiterate that the complexity of the domestic enforcement procedure or of the State budgetary system cannot relieve the State of its obligation under the Convention to guarantee to everyone the right to have a binding and enforceable judicial decision enforced within a reasonable time. Nor is it open to a State authority to cite the lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt. It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal systems in such a way that the competent authorities can meet their obligations in this regard (see Burdov (no.\u00a02), cited above, \u00a7 70).<\/p>\n 27. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the authorities have not deployed sufficient and convincing efforts to be able to justify such a prolonged non-enforcement of the final and enforceable domestic judgment given in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n 28. Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article\u00a06 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the present case.<\/p>\n IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 29. The applicant in application no. 57915\/19 complained that the national law did not offer an effective remedy against the State\u2019s failure to enforce the outstanding judgment given in her favour. She relied on Article\u00a013 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 30. Having regard to the findings in paragraphs 25-27 above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately the admissibility and merits of this complaint (see, for instance, Kuzhelev and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a064098\/09 and 6 others, \u00a7 140, 15 October 2019).<\/p>\n V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 31. Article\u00a041 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 A. Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 32. The applicants sought the payment of the outstanding judgment debt in respect of pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 33. Some applicants also submitted claims in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, while one applicant left the amount to be awarded in that respect to the Court\u2019s discretion (application no. 57915\/19).<\/p>\n 34. The Government argued that those claims were excessive and submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 35. The Court reiterates that the most appropriate form of redress in non\u2011enforcement cases is to ensure full enforcement of the domestic judgments in question (see, for instance, \u0110uri\u0107 and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 79867\/12 and 5 others, \u00a7 36, 20 January 2015). This principle also applies to the present case, the Court considering that the full implementation of the findings of the outstanding judgment of 4 June 2009 (see paragraph 6 above) would ensure appropriate redress to the applicants.<\/p>\n 36. The Court further considers that the applicants sustained some non\u2011pecuniary damage arising from the breaches of the Convention found in this case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article\u00a041 of the Convention, it awards under this head the amounts indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n B. Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 37. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and before the Court; some of them supported their claims with copies of their legal-services contracts.<\/p>\n 38. The Government argued that the amounts claimed were excessive and unsupported by appropriate evidence.<\/p>\n 39. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were also reasonable as to their quantum (see, for example, Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107\/96, \u00a7\u00a054, ECHR 2000-XI, and Spahi\u0107 and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 20514\/15 and 15 others, \u00a7\u00a041, 14\u00a0November 2017).<\/p>\n 40. Regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, as well as to the repetitive nature of the applications and hence of the submitted observations, the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant the amounts indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n C. Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 41. 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares admissible, in respect of all applicants, their complaints raised under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment of 4 June 2009;<\/p>\n 3. Holds, in respect of all applications, that there has been a violation of Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic judgment of 4 June 2009;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that in application no. 57915\/19 there is no need to examine the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the domestic judgment of 4\u00a0June 2009;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n 7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Ilse Freiwirth \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer __________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of cases<\/p>\n (per applicant)<\/strong><\/p>\n (in euros)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n (in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2,000<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 81<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\nCASE OF VEGH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 13064\/18 and 13 others)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 November 2021<\/p>\n
\nIulia Antoanella Motoc,
\nPere Pastor Vilanova, judges,
\nand Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/td>\n Lodged on<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant
\nYear of Birth
\nPlace of Residence
\nNationality<\/strong><\/td>\nRepresented by<\/strong><\/td>\n Non-pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/p>\n Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 13064\/18<\/td>\n 06\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Lauren\u021biu-\u0218tefan VEGH<\/strong>
\n1971
\nHalchiu
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 94<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 13067\/18<\/td>\n 06\/03\/2018<\/td>\n J\u00f3szef KAR\u00c1CSONY<\/strong>
\n1956
\nSf\u00e2ntu Gheorghe
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 204<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 13068\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Enik\u0151 FAIL<\/strong>
\n1953
\nSf\u00e2ntu Gheorghe
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 184<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 13069\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n \u0218tefan VEGH<\/strong>
\nb:1938; d: 2020Pursued by heirsLauren\u021biu-\u0218tefan VEGH<\/strong>(see application no. 13064\/18 above)Rodin-Attila VEGH<\/strong>(see application no. 13074\/18 below)<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 235<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 13074\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Rodin-Attila VEGH<\/strong>
\n1967
\nSf\u00e2ntu Gheorghe
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 94<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 13075\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Margareta Emilia KATONA<\/strong>
\n1944
\nBaraolt
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 204<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 13077\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Carol KOLUMB\u00c1N<\/strong>
\n1948
\nBaraolt
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 204<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 13079\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Ion DIACONU<\/strong>
\n1953
\nSf\u00e2ntu Gheorghe
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 204<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 13080\/18<\/td>\n 07\/03\/2018<\/td>\n Antal KISS<\/strong>
\n1952
\nSf\u00e2ntu Gheorghe
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n 143<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 10.<\/td>\n 24961\/18<\/td>\n 14\/05\/2018<\/td>\n Judit-M\u00e1ria SZ\u0150CS-BIR\u00d3<\/strong>
\n1979
\nT\u00e2rgu Secuiesc
\nRomanianVenczel HORV\u00c1TH<\/strong>
\n1947
\nSf\u00e2ntu Gheorghe
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAdrian M\u00ceLCU<\/td>\n 2,000<\/p>\n 214<\/p>\n \n 11.<\/td>\n 51299\/19<\/td>\n 24\/09\/2019<\/td>\n Mihaela GHEORGHE<\/strong>
\n1985
\nBucharest
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAlexandru
\nROATA-PALADE<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 12.<\/td>\n 51346\/19<\/td>\n 24\/09\/2019<\/td>\n Mircea DR\u0102GAN<\/strong>
\n1945
\nBucharest
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAlexandru
\nROATA-PALADE<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 13.<\/td>\n 51365\/19<\/td>\n 24\/09\/2019<\/td>\n Alexandru DR\u0102GAN<\/strong>
\n1988
\nBucharest
\nRomanian<\/td>\nAlexandru
\nROATA-PALADE<\/td>\n–<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 14.<\/td>\n 57915\/19<\/td>\n 26\/11\/2019<\/td>\n Georgeta PRETOR<\/strong>
\n1961
\nBucharest
\nRomanian<\/td>\nSelf-represented<\/td>\n 2,000<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n