OK GUARD S.R.L. A ŞERBAN proti Rumunsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 40081/18 and 17357/21
OK GUARD S.R.L. against Romania
and Dumitru ŞERBAN against Romania

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 September 2025 as a Committee composed of:

Anne Louise Bormann, President,
Sebastian Răduleţu,
András Jakab, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

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

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

1. Joinder of the applications

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

2. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)

In the present applications, the Court finds that it does not need to rule on the preliminary objections raised by the Government because the complaints are inadmissible in any event for the reasons indicated below.

Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the non‑enforcement or the delayed enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour.

In respect of application no. 40081/18, the Court considers that the authorities acted diligently and assisted the applicant in the process of enforcement. The Court notes that the judgments in question were enforced within a period of approximately one year. Notably, by the final decision of 10 May 2019, the domestic courts found that the authorities had properly fulfilled their obligations arising from the two enforceable titles, by inviting the applicant company to take part on 19 December 2014 in the continuation of the contract award procedure. However, the applicant’s offer had been declared unacceptable, which the applicant company did not challenge before the domestic courts.

In respect of application no. 17357/21, the Court notes that the judgment in question had been enforced expeditiously. In particular, by the decision of 15 November 2018, the National Pension House issued an administrative decision in response to the applicant’s request for revision of his pension rights. The applicant did not challenge that decision. Consequently, while the applicant remained dissatisfied with the manner in which the authorities had addressed his request for the recalculation of pension rights, the authorities fulfilled their obligation to respond to his request in compliance with the requirements of the final judgment of 18 September 2018.

In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 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 25 September 2025.

Viktoriya Maradudina Anne Louise Bormann
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)