IORDACHE A OSTATNÍ proti Rumunsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5735/15
Florică IORDACHE against Romania
and 17 other applications
(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by some of the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

2. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings as well as the complaints in applications nos. 20720/15 and 22393/15 under Article 13 of the Convention, concerning the lack of an effective remedy, were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

A. Joinder of the applications

3. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

B. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)

4. The Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention since the applicants had not pursued an action for tortious liability.

5. Those applicants who replied to the Government’s observations disagreed with the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

6. The Government also raised other preliminary objections. However, the Court will not pursue these objections, as it considers that the complaints are in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

7. In the case of Brudan v. Romania (no. 75717/14, § 68, 10 April 2018), the Court held that following its judgment in the case of Vlad and Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06 and 2 others, 26 November 2013), the action for tortious liability had been included by the domestic courts as an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of proceedings, before both criminal and civil courts in Romania. In Brudan (cited above), the Court also found that the High Court for Cassation and Justice’s judgment of 30 January 2014, which consolidated the domestic case-law on actions for tortious liability, had acquired a sufficient level of certainty on 22 March 2015. It therefore concluded that this remedy must be exhausted, as of that date, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Brudan, cited above, § 88).

8. The present applications were all lodged with the Court after 22 March 2015 (see the appended table) and the applicants were therefore required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to avail themselves of this domestic remedy (see Brudan, cited above, § 89). It appears from the case files that the applicants have not lodged actions for tortious liability before the domestic courts, or have failed to provide the Court with a final decision rendered by the competent court in such proceedings.

9. Accordingly, the Government’s objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be upheld. It follows that these complaints must be rejected as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

C. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention

10. In applications nos. 20720/15 and 22393/15, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. Given that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention have been rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, no issue arises in relation to the applicants’ complaints under Article 13. It follows that they are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

D. Remaining complaints

11. In applications nos. 21070/15, 23221/15, 31263/15, 38876/15, 42268/15 and 44908/15 the applicants also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.

12. The Court has examined the applications listed in the appended table 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.

13. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.

Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)