2337/04;25482/04;26485/04;28121/04;32099/06;40757/06;47515/06;30883/07;23243/08;45244/08;35783/09;37240/09;61891/09;65865/09;10460/10;48595/10;74375/10;6692/12;9633/12;56627/12;29229/13;41128/13;76265/13

FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF TEICĂ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 2337/04 and 22 others – see appended list)                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   20 October 2016       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision In the case of Teică and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,  Egidijus Kūris,  Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.  The applications were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In some of the applications, the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 7.  After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicants S.C. Alma Bucovina S.R.L. (in application no. 26485/04), S.C. T & G Trading S.R.L. (in application no. 28121/04), Florian Mițoi (in relation to the proceedings between 13 June 2001 and 25 March 2005, in application no. 40757/06) and Federalcoop Constanța (concerning the proceedings between 26 April 2001 and 21 January 2011, in application no. 48595/10) must be dismissed as they 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. 8.  As regards the other complaints raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 9.  In the leading case of Vlad and Others v. Romania, nos. 40756/06, 41508/07 and 50806/07, 26 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints and so it considers that in the instant case the length of proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.  Some of the applicants raised other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. 13.  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 do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If 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.” 15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the sums indicated in the appended table, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 2337/04 and 35783/09 who failed to respond to the Court’s letters of 4 December 2009 and 27 April 2015, respectively, inviting them to submit their just satisfaction claims in accordance with Rule 60 of the Rules of the Court. 16.  The 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.  Decides to join the applications;   2.  Declares the complaints raised by the applicants S.C. Alma Bucovina S.R.L. (in application no. 26485/04), S.C. T & G Trading S.R.L. (in application no. 28121/04), Florian Mițoi (in relation to the proceedings between 13 June 2001 and 25 March 2005, in application no. 40757/06) and Federalcoop Constanța (concerning the proceedings between 26 April 2001 and 21 January 2011, in application no. 48595/10) inadmissible.   3.  Declares the remaining complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings admissible, and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;   4.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;   5.  Holds (a)  that 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; (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; 6.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Hasan Bakırcı Vincent A. De Gaetano Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth/ Date of registration   Representative name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction   Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros)[1]     2337/04 05/11/2003 Marin Vergil TEICĂ 06/03/1925     05/04/1996   15/07/2003   7 years and 3 months   3 levels of jurisdiction       25482/04 23/04/2004 Ioan OPRIȘĂNESCU 04/07/1932 Mihai Paul Oprișănescu Bucharest 19/08/1999   13/10/2009   10 years and 1 month   3 levels of jurisdiction   1,200     26485/04 28/06/2004 Alexandru MANDIUC 08/04/1955     29/06/1999   01/06/2006   6 years and 11 months   1 level of jurisdiction   2,000     28121/04 28/04/2004   Georgeta ION 13/11/1955   Abdel Hady Hassan TAREK HASSAN 10/07/1959 Nicoleta Tatiana Popescu Bucharest 23/02/2001   14/06/2013   12 years and 3 months   2 levels of jurisdiction     2,400     32099/06 20/07/2006 Vergil CATANĂ 27/04/1962     08/11/2000   19/01/2006   5 years and 2 months   2 levels of jurisdiction       40757/06 18/09/2006 Florian MIŢOI 28/09/1953     19/09/2006   26/11/2010   4 years and 2 months   2 levels of jurisdiction     47515/06 28/09/2006 Claudiu Gheorghe TOMA 08/08/1969     26/04/1999   05/04/2006   6 years and 11 months   3 levels of jurisdiction       30883/07 05/06/2007 Household Vasile RIZEA 03/09/1953 Rodica RIZEA 15/05/1952     30/06/2000   18/01/2007   6 years and 6 months   2 levels of jurisdiction   1,800     23243/08 10/05/2008 Household Ion STAN-ENACHE 21/11/1928 Ioana STAN-ENACHE 10/02/1935 Stan Enache Lucian Las Vegas 09/09/1999   13/11/2007   8 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     1,200   45244/08 09/09/2008 Household Jan CONSTANTIN 29/05/1951 Rada CONSTANTIN 02/12/1954 Cristina Georgeta Toma Bucharest 13/06/1996   12/03/2008   11 years and 9 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     3,000   35783/09 01/06/2009 Ioana PETRACHE 02/09/1949     31/10/2003           07/10/2005   pending           13/12/2013   More than 12 years and 8 months   1 level of jurisdiction     8 years and 2 months   2 levels of jurisdiction     37240/09 29/06/2009 Octavian GOŞA 31/03/1953     02/06/2000   12/12/2008   8 years and 6 months   1 level of jurisdiction 1,800   61891/09 04/08/2009 Traian POPOVICIU 13/08/1949     23/09/1998   16/02/2009   10 years and 4 months   2 levels of jurisdiction   2,400   65865/09 10/12/2009 Mugurel NIȚOIU 05/06/1966 Daniel Caraman Bucharest 09/01/2001   16/06/2009   8 years and 5 months   2 levels of jurisdiction   1,800   10460/10 14/12/2009 Sándor KOCSIS 24/04/1956     15/08/1997   12/06/2009   11 years and 9 months   2 levels of jurisdiction   3,000   48595/10 12/08/2010 FEDERALCOOP CONSTANŢA 02/04/1949     18/12/2003         07/07/2005   09/03/2010         07/06/2011   6 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     5 years and 11 months   2 levels of jurisdiction   2,000   74375/10 06/12/2010 Mihai RADIANU 22/02/1954 Ulupinar Elena Roxana Bucharest 27/01/1995   10/06/2010   15 years and 4 months   2 levels of jurisdiction   3,600   6692/12 17/01/2012 Elena RÎPEANU 18/10/1967     07/11/2007   18/11/2011   4 years   2 levels of jurisdiction       9633/12 03/09/2011 Leonica POPESCU 22/07/1951     10/12/2003   08/03/2011   7 years and 2 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     56627/12 27/08/2012 Veronica IOANICESCU 12/07/1947       08/09/2003   29/02/2012   8 years and 5 months   3 levels of jurisdiction     29229/13 22/04/2013   Dragoș DUCIUC 11/09/1939   Ioan DUCIUC 15/04/1966   Rozalia RĂSTOACĂ 16/09/1960   Eufrosina DUCIUC 21/11/1968     27/01/2005   26/10/2012   7 years and 9 months   2 levels of jurisdiction     1,200   41128/13 17/06/2013 Zoltan BOROS 08/05/1975 Krisztina Kecseti Miercurea Ciuc 24/07/2007   19/12/2012   5 years and 4 months   2 levels of jurisdiction     76265/13 28/11/2013 Laurian SÎNGEAP 06/10/1956     27/12/2007   06/05/2009   03/09/2008   28/05/2013   4 years and 10 months   2 levels of jurisdiction     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.