{"id":2503,"date":"2019-04-28T14:10:35","date_gmt":"2019-04-28T14:10:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=2503"},"modified":"2019-04-28T17:14:10","modified_gmt":"2019-04-28T17:14:10","slug":"case-of-romanian-musical-performing-and-mechanical-rights-society-and-others-v-romania","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=2503","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ROMANIAN MUSICAL PERFORMING AND MECHANICAL RIGHTS SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF ROMANIAN MUSICAL PERFORMING AND MECHANICAL RIGHTS SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
\n(Application no. 70937\/14 and 2 others – see appended list)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n28 March 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Romanian Musical Performing and Mechanical Rights Society and Others v. Romania,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Georges Ravarani, President,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9terPaczolay, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 7 March 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\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Romanian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

5.\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

6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions 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<\/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

7.\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

8.\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\u00a0January 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case, where the State is the debtor.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered the payment of various amounts of money to the applicants by various public authorities (see the appended table). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute \u201cpossessions\u201d within the meaning of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No.\u00a01.<\/p>\n

10.\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 in due time the decisions in the applicants\u2019 favour.<\/p>\n

11.\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

III.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

12.\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

13.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699\/03 and 43597\/07, 7\u00a0January 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

14.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 concerning the delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 March 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
\nActing 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\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Relevant domestic decision<\/strong><\/td>\nStart date of non-enforcement period<\/strong><\/td>\nEnd date of non-enforcement period<\/strong><\/p>\n

Length of enforcement proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\n

Domestic order<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n70937\/14<\/p>\n

23\/10\/2014<\/td>\n

Romanian Musical Performing and Mechanical Rights Society<\/strong>02\/10\/1996,<\/p>\n

represented by Ana Achim<\/td>\n

Bucharest Court of Appeal, 25\/10\/2011<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

08\/02\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

18\/08\/2015<\/p>\n

2 years and 6\u00a0months and 11 days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Financial order and the communication of a report<\/td>\n2,500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n46892\/17<\/p>\n

28\/06\/2017<\/td>\n

S.C. Cartrans Preda S.R.L.<\/strong><\/p>\n

29\/07\/1994,<\/p>\n

represented by<\/p>\n

Rodica-Roxana<\/p>\n

Ioni\u021b\u0103<\/td>\n

Ploie\u0219ti Court of Appeal, 17\/07\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

17\/07\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

02\/10\/2018<\/p>\n

5 years and 2\u00a0months and 16\u00a0days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Financial order<\/td>\n6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n50981\/17<\/p>\n

10\/07\/2017<\/td>\n

Blaj Reformed Parish<\/strong><\/p>\n

02\/11\/1998,<\/p>\n

represented by Ileana Cezariana Bogos, a lawyer practising in Alba-Iulia<\/td>\n

Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, 14\/05\/2012<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

14\/05\/2012<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

06\/03\/2018<\/p>\n

5 years and 9\u00a0months and 21\u00a0days<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Financial order<\/td>\n6,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n