Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Third Section Committee), March 17, 2015 (case CASE OF IGNATESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA)

Judge:N\/A
Defense:ROMANIA
Resolution Date:March 17, 2015
Issuing Organization:Court (Third Section Committee)

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF IGNĂTESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

(Applications nos. 32168/05, 30403/06, 12522/08, 62989/10, 6898/11, 14566/11, 20656/11, 54593/11, 57508/11 and 59238/11)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 March 2015

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

In the case of Ignătescu and Others v. Romania,

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

             Dragoljub Popović, President,              Kristina Pardalos,              Valeriu Griţco, judges,and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 17 February 2015,

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

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in ten applications (nos. 32168/05, 30403/06, 12522/08, 62989/10, 6898/11, 14566/11, 20656/11, 54593/11, 57508/11 and 59238/11) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Romanian companies and thirteen Romanian nationals. Their names and other details, as well as the date of lodging of each application are specified in the appended table.

  2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  3. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, after informing the respondent Government, the applications were assigned to a Committee of three Judges.

    THE FACTS

    1. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES

  4. On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and/or to have certain actions taken by State authorities in their favour. However, the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time.

    1. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

  5. The relevant domestic legal provisions and procedures concerning the enforcement of final judgments against State authorities are described in the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania (nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, §§ 36- 40, 7 January 2014).

    THE LAW

    1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

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

  7. The applicants complained that the non-enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the final judgments rendered in their favour had infringed their right to access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and also their right to property as provided by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Insofar as relevant, these Articles 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial