Costica MOLDOVAN and Others v Romania - 8229/04 [2011] ECHR 374 (15 February 2011)

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Costica MOLDOVAN and Others v Romania - 8229/04 [2011] ECHR 374 (15 February 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/374.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 374

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 8229/04 and other applications
Costică MOLDOVAN and Others
against Romania

(see appendix for other applications)

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 February 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ján Šikuta,
Ineta Ziemele,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged by the applicants mentioned in the attached table (see below),

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The present applications, concerning the living conditions of Romanian citizens of Roma origin living in the village of Hădăreni, Mureş County, follow two other applications that have been joined (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01). The said applications were lodged with the Court on 14 April 1997 and 9 May 2000 respectively, by twenty-five Romanian nationals of Roma origin living in the above-mentioned village, as a consequence of the inter-ethnic violent events of 20 September 1993 which led to the killing of three people of Roma origin and the burning of eighteen Roma houses.

The two applications mentioned above have resulted in a friendly settlement agreement (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1) (friendly settlement), 5 July 2005), concerning eighteen of the twenty-five original applicants and in a judgment on the merits concerning the remaining seven applicants (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o2), 12 July 2005, ECHR 2005-VII) where the Court found a violation, inter alia, of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ living conditions.

The applicants in the present cases, some of them also parties to the proceedings in the cases of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1 and2), cited above, are eighty-six Romanian nationals of Roma origin. They all used to live in the village of Hădăreni, Mures County. Since the events of September 1993 some applicants have returned to Hădăreni, while others have been living in various parts of the country. Mr Dănuţ Moldovan, Ms Florina Lăcătuş, Mr Ionel-Dafin Lăcătuş, Ms Eleonora Rostaş, Mr Nicolae-Florin Moldovan and Ms Maria Moldovan are currently living in Spain; Mr Petrică-Florin Lăcătuş, Mr Ovidiu-Stelian Lăcătuş and Mr Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş are living in Switzerland; Ms Elena Moldovan, Mr Cosmin-Florin Lăcătuş and Mr Bazil Moldovan are living in France; Ms Mariana Moldovan is living in Italy; while Ms Lenuca-Petruţa Moldovan is living in Germany.

The name and year of birth of each applicant, the date of the lodging of each application and the blood relationships between the applicants are described in the attached table (see annex below).

On 25 February 2009 the applicants, who originally either had no representation or were represented by some of the other applicants, sent powers of attorney authorising Mr Ovidiu-Laurenţiu Podaru to represent them before the Court.

Consequently, all applicants in all the applications are currently represented before the Court by Mr Ovidiu-Laurenţiu Podaru, a lawyer practising in Cluj-Napoca. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the cases

7. The present cases originate in the events which took place in 1993 in the village of Hădăreni and which are summarised in the judgments of Moldovan and Others, (n^o1 and 2), cited above. In so far as they concern the current applicants they may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are mainly the children, the grandchildren, the nephews and the nieces of the twenty-five original applicants, victims of the events of 20 September 1993. Many of them were minors at the time of the events and were living with their relatives.

In the aftermath of the events they were forced to live in hen-houses, stables, pigsties, windowless cellars or in cold and inappropriate conditions (sleeping on concrete and muddy floors, in crowded conditions or in outhouse kitchens without a proper roof or windows) together with their families. Those conditions lasted for several years and in some cases they have not been fully remedied to date.

Many applicants consider that as a result they fell ill and developed a number of medical conditions, in particular heart conditions resulting in heart attacks, meningitis and diabetes. Some of them have now also developed mental disabilities. Although they all had access over the years to treatment provided by the national health care system, their limited financial resources and the alleged discriminatory treatment they were faced with in the hospitals and medical private practices prevented them from curing their illnesses.

Only some of the applicants have been party to the domestic proceedings. They include, among others, Maria “Raria” Rostaş (Moldovan), Tiberiu Moldovan, Bazil Moldovan, Gabriela Moldovan, Mariana Moldovan and her brothers Octavian Rostaş, Petru-Doru Lăcătuş and Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş (the last four applicants as heirs of their mother Rozalia Rostaş). However, none of the said applicants appealed the judgment delivered by the first-instance court during the course of the civil proceedings brought against the third parties convicted for the destruction of their homes.

The applicants, who were minors at that time and were legally represented by their parents or grandparents, were not included as parties to these proceedings. They consider, however, that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had an obligation under Article 45 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, taken in conjunction with Article 173 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, to represent their best interests and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings.

1) The facts of each application, partly in dispute by the parties, can be summarised as follows:

1. Application no. 8229/04

The applicants declared that they had fled the village after they had witnessed the burning and destruction of Iulius Moldovan and Maria “Raria” Rostaş’ houses. They sought refuge in the forest, in the fields, in the neighbouring villages and with relatives. When they attempted to return to the village they were met by an angry mob and chased by the police, who fired on them. They declare that their houses were burned down or destroyed by the mob, together with their belongings. Consequently, they were forced to sleep outdoors for various periods of time with no food or clothing. In the aftermath of the events, they were forced to live in pigsties for years with no furniture and some of them, like Costică Moldovan, were beaten by the police. Călina Rostaş, Nadia Moldovan and Virgil-Sorin Moldovan declared that as a result of the living conditions they became physically or mentally ill. In his letter of 19 August 2008 Costică Moldovan informed the Court that he was not party to the civil proceedings before the domestic courts. He argued that the civil proceedings depended on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, and the latter had been rejected for political reasons. Consequently, he did not have the opportunity to lodge his complaints before the domestic courts. Lenuţa and Claudiu Rostaş declared that only one room of their parental home had been renovated with Governmental funds. Radu-Mihai Rostaş considers that he was never able to graduate from school because he was allegedly discriminated against by his colleagues.

The Government submitted that Costică and Loredana Moldovan continued to live in Hădăreni and that Loredana had completed the fifth grade at school. Social welfare visits conducted at Loredana’s home in 2001 showed that her family was living in a two-room house with gas and electricity supply. According to a letter of 11 June 2009 from the Mureş Social and Child Protection Agency (the Child Protection Agency), between 4 April 2001 and 30 April 2002 Loredana was registered as suffering from a medium degree of learning disability. Radu-Cristureanu Rostaş was living with his parents in 1993 and their home was not affected by the events. With the exception of Claudiu Rostaş, who lives in Petroşani and has completed the fourth grade at school, Lenuţa, Cosmin-Sebastian and Radu Mihai Rostaş live at no 77 Hădăreni and have completed the fifth, seventh and second grades at school, respectively. Their parents’ home was rebuilt with Government funds. Both Nadia and Virgil-Sorin Moldovan have completed the third grade at school.

2. Application no. 8234/04

The applicant declared that on 20 September 1993 part of her house and all her belongings were destroyed by the mob, leaving her and her children without shelter. In the aftermath of the events her children became ill because of the inhuman conditions they were forced to live in. She was party to the domestic proceedings and was awarded damages of 240,000 lei (ROL) for the partial destruction of her house by a judgment of 12 May 2003 of the Mureş County Court. She did not appeal against the judgment. 16. The Government submitted that the applicant was living at no. 157 Hădăreni at the time of the events. The Mureş County Court awarded the applicant six euros (EUR) in damages, on the ground that according to the expert report available in the file only the windows of the applicant’s house had been broken as a result of the events. Moreover, according to the said judgment, the applicant declared before the domestic courts that only the windows of her house, four earrings, four icons, a lamp, an armchair and a bed had been destroyed as a result of the events. This contradicts her statement before the Court, where she declared that her house was burned down together with many of her belongings.

3. Application no. 12713/04

The applicant declared that in September 1993 she was forced to abandon her home, together with her daughter, her mother, her partner and her siblings. She declares that both she and her daughter have mental health problems as a consequence of the events, and her belongings were destroyed when her mother’s house was set on fire.

The Government submitted that at the time of the events the applicant was living at no. 152 Hădăreni, where she continues to reside to date. She had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she was registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services.

4. Application no. 12722/04

The applicant declared that at the time of the events he was serving in the army. In November 1993 he returned to the village and he was threatened and hit with stones thrown by some of the villagers. They followed him to his mother’s house, where they continued throwing stones, which damaged the windows and the roof of the house. Following the incident, the applicant spent the rest of his leave at his sister’s house (Alexandrina Rostaş – application no. 13129/04) located in another village. Because he was afraid for his and his family’s safety, he would return to the village of Hădăreni only at night. Since 2003 the applicant has been living in Spain.

The Government submitted that the applicant was not present in the village at the time of the events. At the time of the events his official residence was at no. 76 Hădăreni. However, he has been living in Spain since 2003.

5. Application no. 13129/04

The applicant declared that at the time of the events she was visiting her relative, Meneluţa Moldovan, and was alone in her relative’s house together with her relative’s three minor children when she was alerted by her mother, Maria Moldovan, that an angry mob had started burning Roma houses in the village. She gathered her relatives and took them all to her house in the village of Cheţani. The applicant believes that both she and her family were affected by the events, in so far as the police stopped seventeen non-Roma individuals from setting fire to the applicant’s home located at Cheţani no. 3. Moreover, she could sell her house in Cheţani village only for a very low price.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living at no. 3 Cheţani at the time of the events. From 2002 the applicant was registered as living in Luduş and she had never lived in Hădăreni.

6. Application no. 14538/04

The applicants alleged that their house and belongings had been destroyed by the angry mob. In the aftermath of the events, they had had to live for days in stables with no food, electricity or heating. Later on they had sought shelter with family and friends. They declared that as a result of the stress they were subjected to they had become mentally and physically ill. They are allegedly suffering from various degrees of handicap, diabetes and other ailments they have developed as a result of the events, such as loss of hair in Florina Lăcătuş’ case. Ancuţa-Lucreţia, Petruţa-Maria and Iuliu Lăcătuş consider that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings. Rada-Didina Moldovan, Petruţa-Maria Lăcătuş, Iuliu Lăcătuş and Petru-Valentin Lăcătuş declare that they were discriminated against at school and Florina Lăcătuş stated that she is currently living on a rubbish dump in Spain. In her letter of 29 July 2008 Maria-Gherghina Lăcătuş informed the Court that she was one of the original twenty-five applicants and that she was awarded EUR 13,000 as a result of the friendly settlement agreement.

The Government submitted that at the time of the events the applicants were living at no. 114 Hădăreni. With the exception of Rada Didina Moldovan and Florina Lăcătuş, all of them continue to live at the same address. Social welfare visits conducted at the applicants’ home in 2004, 2005 and 2007 showed that the house of the Lăcătuş family had electricity and gas, three rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen and the family’s income consisted of Petru “Gruia” Lăcătuş’ pension and the child allowance awarded by the State for the upbringing of minor children. At the same time Ancuţa-Lucreţia Lăcătuş was living in a house consisting of a room and a kitchen equipped with gas and electricity and located in the same courtyard as her parents’ house, and her income consisted of an allowance for her son. Petruţa-Maria Lăcătuş had completed the eighth grade at school in 1998. On 17 January 2007, 9 April 2008, and 21 and 22 January 2009 Iuliu, Maria Gherghina, Petru-Valentin and Ancuţa-Lucreţia Lăcătuş were diagnosed with various degrees of mental disability which they had had since 1976 and 1984. However, they had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioners they are registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services.

7. Application no. 31016/04

The applicants alleged that in September 1993 they witnessed the destruction of their house and belongings. They were forced to abandon their house, and sought refuge in a neighbouring village, where they remained for weeks with no food or clothes and slept in the fields. Tiberiu Moldovan declares that he was awarded ROL 1,300,000 in pecuniary damages for the destruction of his house by the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 May 2003. However, he did not appeal against the judgment on the ground that he had left to work abroad and no one was at home to notify him. The judgment has not been enforced to date, although on 25 August 2003 the applicant was informed by the enforcement officer’s office that the judgment had become enforceable and the applicant needed to pay the enforcement fees. They also declare that they had had to borrow money from third parties in order to restore one room of their house and repair their belongings. Moreover, they had developed health problems as a result of the events and the overcrowded living conditions. In a letter of 10 January 2010 Tiberiu Moldovan informed the Court that Petrică-Cidu Moldovan had died by drowning and that he would like to continue his application.

The Government submitted that Tiberiu Moldovan, Ţiţo Rostaş, Petrică-Cidu Moldovan, Maria-Gabi Moldovan, Dolfi Rostaş and Olga Mirela Moldovan were living at no. 41 Hădăreni at the time of the events and they continue to live there. They had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner they are registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services. Lidia-Sonia Moldovan, Florin Rostaş and Crîşmaru Moldovan were not living in Hădăreni at the time of the events. Between 1981 and 2005 the official legal residence of Lidia-Sonia Moldovan was no. 15 Cuiesd and starting from 2005 no. 32 Crizantemelor Street, Sighişoara. In 1997 Florin Rostaş’ official residence was changed to no. 41 Hădăreni, where he continues to live. In 1995 Florin dropped out of school. Currently the official residence of Crîsmaru Moldovan is no. 3 Tineretului Street in Lupeni. In 1999 Crîşmaru and Petrică-Cidu Moldovan completed the sixth and fourth grades at school respectively. In 2001 Maria-Gabi Moldovan completed the sixth grade, but she no longer lives in the village. In 2002 Dolfi Rostaş had completed the fifth grade and in 2005 he dropped out of school, although he continues to live in the village. Currently Olga-Mirela Moldovan lives in the village of Răuseni.

8. Application no. 142/05

The applicant declared that on 20 September 1993 he was living with his grandmother, whose house was burned down. He allegedly had to live in inhuman conditions for months, was forced to sleep in a pigsty in December, was refused treatment for his illnesses by the doctor, was beaten up by the police and was discriminated against at school. Consequently, he was forced to leave Romania for Spain. He declared that he had become ill as a result of the conditions he was forced to live in for years, and had had to undergo surgery. Moreover, he considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as party to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with his grandparents at no 195A Hădăreni at the time of the events. He is currently living in Spain. In 1994 all seven members of his family were living in the kitchen of his parental house, which had been partially destroyed. The applicant and his family received some assistance from the authorities over the years. They were given four blankets in 1993, ROL 4,130,000 in 1994, and their house was rebuilt in 1995. On 19 May 2009, according to the National Authority for Roma (NAR) some more work needed to be done on the applicant’s house: the replacement of six windows and four doors, the reinforcement of the rear wall, paving around the foundations and the installation of drainpipes.

9. Application no. 5395/05

The applicants declared that their house and belongings had been burned down or destroyed. They all had to leave the village with no clothes or food. The police refused to help them during the events and they declared that their house had not been rebuilt to date because they did not have title to the house or the land it was built on. Consequently they were all forced to live for four years in a damp cellar. Moreover, they continue to live in overcrowded conditions in another village, sharing two rooms with eight other people. They all suffer from various physical and mental health problems because of the dampness and the cold they were exposed to for several years. The children were discriminated against at school and could not attend school any more. They consider that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that Lucaci Moldovan and his children were living in Hădăreni at the time of the events in a house that was burned down. They all moved to the village of Frata, where they still live.

10. Application no. 15998/05

The applicants declared that in September 1993 their parental home was burned down and they were forced to leave the village. For months they lived in the forest with no food or clothes and slept on the ground. Consequently, they became ill with tuberculosis and other lung and kidney diseases. They were allowed to return to the village only in April 1994, but continued to be discriminated against both at school and on the labour market. They consider that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and introduce them as parties to the proceedings. Petrică-Florin and Ovidiu Stelian Lăcătuş declared that they had left Romania and were currently living in Switzerland on a rubbish dump.

The Government submitted that the applicants were living with their parents at no. 115 Hădăreni at the time of the events and were still living in the village. However, only Nicolae-Romică Lăcătuş is still living with his parents at no. 115. Ovidiu-Stelian Lăcătuş is living at no. 116 with his friend and Petrică-Florin Lăcătuş is living at no. 121. They all attended school in Hădăreni, Nicolae-Romică and Ovidiu-Stelian have completed eight grades, while Petrică-Florin has completed only seven. They have always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner they are registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services.

11. Application no. 11382/06

The applicant declared that in September 1993 her parents’ house was burned down. The house was only partially rebuilt and therefore she had to live in the summer house even during the winter. For years she was forced to sleep on the floor and suffered from the cold every winter; she had no money for medication. Consequently, she became ill. Her parental home was still not finished. She was discriminated against at school even though she had successfully completed eight grades and had enrolled in a technical college in Câmpia-Turzii. Here she continued to be subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. She is currently working in Spain to support her family. She considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with her parents at no. 78 Hădăreni at the time of the events. She continued to live in the village at the same address. She attended school in the village and completed eight grades in 1992. She had always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she was registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services.

12. Application no. 20818/06

The applicants declared that Radu-Iţoc Moldovan was dead and his widow Maria Moldovan was continuing his application. Their parents’ and grandparents’ house was burnt down and they were forced to leave the village and live for months in a basement and a shed until their parental home was rebuilt. As a result of the conditions they were forced to live in they became ill. Moreover, they continued to be discriminated against at school and in society. They consider that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and introduce them as parties to the proceedings. Elena Moldovan declared that she currently lived in France and earned her living by begging, while Lenuca-Petruţa Moldovan lived in Germany.

The Government submitted that all the applicants with the exception of Radu-Iţoc, Geta-Romina and Lenuca-Petruţa Moldovan lived at no. 2 Hădăreni. Sandi-Adrian, Aurica and Elena Moldovan do not attend school. Bazil-Cosmin, Robert-Ştefan and Bobi-Aladin Moldovan have completed the seventh, eighth and first grades, respectively. Geta-Romina, Lenuca Petruţa and Crina-Simina Moldovan live at no. 227A Hădăreni and they have completed the eighth, eighth and seventh grade respectively. The applicants’ parental home at no. 2 Hădăreni was rebuilt with Government funds.

13. Application no. 23901/06

The applicant declared that she provided shelter in her house located in the village of Mărtineşti for her mother and her mother’s husband after her mother’s house was burned down. Moreover, her mother and her mother’s family lived with her until 1995, when their house was rebuilt. She alleged that as a direct consequence of the events in Hădăreni she had been threatened by her neighbours in Mărtineşti with the burning of her house and her children started being discriminated against at school. They were allegedly also refused medical treatment by the local doctor.

The Government submitted that the applicant did not live in Hădăreni at the time of the events and she does not live there now. In 2002 her official place of residence was no. 20 Mărtineşti.

14. Application no. 23965/06

The applicants allege that their husband and father died following the events of 20 September 1993. Consequently, they had to leave their home and go to the neighbouring villages. They declare that for days they had to live in the fields with no food or clothes, which caused them to become ill. They are still homeless.

The Government submitted that Simona-Cerasela Lăcătuş’ husband was killed on 14 October 1993 by three other Roma citizens (Bazil-Sami, Adrian and Bazil Moldovan) with no causal link between his death and the events of 20 September 1993. The applicants were living, and still live, at no. 111 Mărtineşti.

15. Application no. 24223/06

The applicant alleges that following the events in September 1993 he became mentally ill. He declares that he was saved from the flames which burned down his parents’ house by his grandparents. His belongings were destroyed by the fire and his parental home has not been rebuilt to date. He was discriminated against at school and therefore completed only five grades. He considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and introduce him as party to the proceedings. He is currently living in France.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with his grandmother at no. 1 Hădăreni at the time of the events. The applicant attended school in the village until 2005. He is currently enrolled in sixth grade but he abandoned school. He continues to live with his grandmother, who is also raising him. On 12 July 1996 the Commission for the Protection of Minor Children working within the Mureş County Council (the Child Protection Commission) decided to entrust the applicant to his grandparents on account of his family situation (his father was in prison and his mother had abandoned him), following a social enquiry which examined the living conditions of his grandmother and assessed whether he could be entrusted to her for upbringing. From 1996 he was monitored by the relevant local authorities and offered assistance relevant to his needs. On 4 April 2001 the Medical Commission for Children with Mental Disabilities diagnosed the applicant with “minor mental disability and behavioural problems” and acknowledged that the applicant has a third-degree mental disability. He has always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner he is registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services. On 29 September 2006 the Child Protection Commission decided to discontinue the special support measures awarded to the applicant and the special allowance given to his grandmother. His medical file of 19 July 2007 states that the applicant’s condition was present at his birth.

16. Application no. 25773/06

The applicants allege that their parents’ house was burned down in September 1993 and has not yet been rebuilt. Their family sought refuge at their grandparents’ house, but that house was also burned down. They left the village and hid in the woods for three days with no food or clothes. Consequently, as a result of the cold they became physically and mentally ill. The applicants also declare that as a result of the events they were discriminated against at school and were unable to graduate. Eventually, on an unspecified date they moved to the village of Teaca. They consider that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings.

The Government alleges that the applicants, with the exception of Sabina Moldovan, lived with their mother at no. 170 Hădăreni at the time of the events. Between 1997 and 2001 Adrian-Silviu Moldovan attended school in Hădăreni. Currently, Adrian-Silviu and Adriana Moldovan live at nos. 131 and 170 Hădăreni respectively, and they have always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner they are registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services. Adrian-Silviu Moldovan is being treated for diabetes. Sabina Moldovan was living in the village of Pinticu at the time of the events and she is currently still registered as living in the same village, as a farmer. Moreover, her mother did not mention her in her statement following the events of Hădăreni where she declared that she was living in the village with her other two children. On 30 January and 6 February 2003 the Pinticu local authorities twice visited Sabina’s address at no. 25 Pinticu to check whether she is eligible for social welfare.

17. Application no. 31063/06

The applicant declared that at the time of the conflict she was living with her parents at no. 183 Hădăreni. They were forced to leave the village for five months and did not have a proper place to sleep. As a result she developed a heart condition and she continues to have to use special medication. Moreover, for years her family had to share a single room with the roof and the windows covered with cellophane. She stated that she was discriminated against by her school teachers and consequently she had to abandon school.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with her parents at the time of the events. Between 1987 and 1992 she attended school in the village, but in 1996 she stopped going to school. Currently she lives in her own house in the village at no. 212 and is the beneficiary of social aid awarded by the Cheţani Mayor’s Office. She has always benefited from adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she is registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services.

18. Application no. 31071/06

The applicants alleged that in September 1993 their house was burned down. They were forced to leave their house and were not allowed by the local police to return to the village. Consequently, they had to sleep outdoors and they became physically and mentally ill. The same local police used mace on them and beat up Adrian “Costică” Moldovan’s wife. She allegedly lodged a criminal complaint against the police with no results. Adrian “Costică” Moldovan declared that his wife, whose application he continues, died as a result of the fear caused by the beating. Nicolae-Florin Moldovan alleges that as a result of the events he started being discriminated against at school and had to abandon school. Moreover, Nicolae-Florin and Maria Moldovan consider that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce them as parties to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicants lived at no 195A Hădăreni at the time of the events. Their house was rebuilt in 1995 from Government funds. On 19 May 2009, according to the NAR, more work needed to be done on the applicants’ house: the replacement of six windows and four doors, the reinforcement of the rear wall, paving around the foundations and installation of drainpipes.

19. Application no. 31077/06

The applicant alleged that as a result of the events of 20 September 1993 her parental home was destroyed and she was forced to sleep on the floor for a long time. Consequently, she developed a number of lung problems. Moreover, at school she was discriminated against by her teachers and classmates and as a result of the stress she had to endure at school she developed psychological problems. She considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce her as party to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with her grandmother at no. 1 Hădăreni at the time of the events. On 12 July 1996 the Child Protection Commission decided to entrust the applicant to her grandparents on account of her family situation (her father was in prison and her mother had abandoned her), following a social enquiry which examined her grandmother’s living conditions and assessed whether the applicant could be entrusted to her for upbringing. Until 29 June 2006 the applicant was granted a special allowance because she had been entrusted to her grandparents to be brought up. From that date the allowance was discontinued by the Child Protection Commission on the ground that the applicant’s father had been released from prison and he was living with her and her grandparents. Starting from 1996 the applicant’s situation was periodically examined by the local social services and followed up by social enquiries, reports and psychosocial investigations, which did not recommend that the applicant be enrolled in a social protection programme. She always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner she was registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services. At the end of 2006 she graduated from school in Hădăreni and is currently enrolled in a school in Turda. She is living in Hădăreni with her family. According to the information provided by the NAR., the Mureş County Council, the Mureş Prefect’s Office and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) the house owned by her grandmother has been restored and repaired.

20. Application no. 31079/06

The applicants alleged that on 20 September 1993 their parents’ house was destroyed by the villagers. They were forced to leave the village for months. In the aftermath of the events, their family was forced to live in one damp room covered with cellophane, sleeping on the floor and without electricity. Consequently, they became ill. Moreover, they declared that they were discriminated against at school by their teachers.

The Government submitted that the applicants were living in Hădăreni at the time of the events together with their parents. However, they are currently living in Lugoj (Ramona-Paraschiva and Mirela-Geanina) or elsewhere (Gabriel-Marius and Aurel-Matei).

21. Application no. 31546/06

The applicant alleged that following the events of September 1993 he had suffered burns in the fire which destroyed his parents’ house and had been forced to live outdoors for months. Moreover, in October 1993 he was chased and beaten by the police. Consequently, he became ill and was left with a disability which prevented him from supporting his family. He considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as party to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicant continued to live in the village and was the recipient of social aid from the local Mayor’s Office.

22. Application no. 38813/06

The applicant alleged that following the events of 20 September 1993 his parents’ house was burned down. Consequently, he was forced to live outdoors for two months. As a result he developed lung problems and a physical disability which prevented him from supporting his family. Moreover, in October 1993 he was chased and beaten by the police. He declared that he was discriminated against at school by his teachers and colleagues. He considers that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as party to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living with his parents at no. 195A Hădăreni at the time of the events and that he continues to live in the village to the present.

23. Application no. 4672/07

The applicants alleged that in September 1993 their house was burned down and they were forced to leave the village. They were not able to take any clothes or food with them. As a result they are currently suffering from a number of physical and mental disabilities, including meningitis and serious eye problems, which they are unable to have treated due to lack of money. They declared that in 2001 they left the village of Hădăreni and they now live in the village of Unirea. Moreover, Sibianca Lămîiţa Lăcătuş also declared that she was discriminated against by her school teachers.

The Government submitted that the applicants were all living at no. 152 Hădăreni at the time of the events. According to the Mureş Prefect’s Office, in 1994 the members of Valentina Rostaş’ family were housed by one of her sisters. Moreover the applicants were granted some aid by the authorities (two blankets) and in September 1995 their house was rebuilt with Government funds. Apart from Sibianca-Lămîiţa Lăcătuş, none of them now live in Hădăreni.

24. Application no. 7909/07

The applicants declared that their house was burned down. They left the village and walked twenty-five kilometres to the village of Unirea, where their relatives live. They alleged that they continued to live with their relatives to date and their house in Hădăreni had not been rebuilt.

The Government submitted that while the applicants had been living in Hădăreni at the time of the events they are currently living in Unirea.

25. Application no. 15949/07

The applicants alleged that for five years they were unable to return to the village. They declared that they had suffered physical and mental traumas as a result of the events. Moreover, their family has had to sell the house they owned in the village for an unreasonably low price.

The Government submitted that the applicants were living with their parents in Hădăreni at the time of the events. Afterwards their family left the village and moved to the village of Unirea.

26. Application no. 34568/07

The applicant alleged that his parents’ house was burned down. Consequently, he was forced to raise his children in inhuman conditions. He declared that he was a civil party to the domestic proceedings of 12 January 2001, but did not appeal against that, judgment, on the ground that he was under arrest at the time and was not summoned. He also declared that he had been discriminated against and was unable to find a job. Consequently, he left Romania and is currently living in France on a rubbish dump.

The Government submitted that the applicant was in prison for murder at the time of the events and did not own a house. Currently he lives at no. 2 Hădăreni. His parents’ house was burned down and was subsequently rebuilt with Government funds.

27. Application no. 48126/07

The applicant alleged that in September 1993 her parents’ house was burned down and she had to leave the village together with her three children. They were forced to live with relatives in inappropriate conditions for five months. Until their house was repaired the entire family lived in one room with no electricity. In so far as her house was renovated with Government funds, the applicant declared that the Government only provided beams, one door and two windows. Moreover, the roof had to be improvised out of nylon and other materials that offered extremely poor insulation. She further declared that she could not send her children to school because of their living conditions. Consequently, her children left Romania and are currently living abroad on rubbish dumps. Moreover, she was a civil party to the domestic proceedings of 12 January 2001, but failed to appeal against the said judgment.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living in her parents’ house at the time of the events. Currently she lives at no. 227A Hădăreni. The house was rebuilt with Government funds. On 19 May 2009, according to the NAR, some more work needed to be done on the applicant’s parents’ house: repairs to all the ceilings in the house, the roof and the replacement of three or four windows.

28. Application no. 1415/08

The applicants alleged that following the events of 20 September 1993 they were discriminated against at school. Their parents’ home was totally destroyed. For half a year they were forced to live in a field in a hut made of clay. Afterwards they moved into a house with broken windows and a missing roof and were forced to sleep on the floor for three years. Mariana Moldovan declared that she was forced to go to Italy to work in deplorable conditions in order to be able to support her family, while Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş left for Switzerland. By a judgment of 12 May 2003 Mureş County Court awarded the applicants jointly ROL 10,000,000 in compensation for the partial destruction of their home. The applicants did not appeal against the said decision. They allege that their parents died of heart attacks as a result of the conditions they were living in. Moreover, Mariana Moldovan herself has the same heart condition. The parental home has not been rebuilt to date. Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş considered that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation to protect the interests of the minor children and to introduce him as a party to the proceedings.

The Government submitted that the applicants’ house had not been affected by the events. At the time they were all living at no. 49 Hădăreni. In 1989 and 1993 Octavian Rostaş and Petru-Doru Lăcătuş completed the first grade at school, while Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş has never attended school.

29. Application no. 55152/08

The applicant alleged that his house has not been rebuilt to date, although it was burned down in 1993. He declares that he currently lives in a single room next to a stable and has been living there for the last eighteen years. As a result, he and his children have developed a number of medical conditions and he even had to undergo surgery as a result of the stable flies which invade his room regularly. He considers that the just satisfaction awarded by the Court is also discriminatory, because the amount awarded to him for damages was very small.

The Government submitted that the applicant was in prison at the time of the events, following a conflict between Roma families which led to the killing of a third party. His house at no. 1 Hădăreni was burned down during the events and was not rebuilt with Government funds. Currently he lives in Hădăreni with his girlfriend. He has always had access to adequate medical assistance provided by the general practitioner he is registered with and by the Hădăreni medical assistance services.

30. Application no. 55168/08

The applicant alleged that following the events of 20 September 1993 his house was burned down and he was forced to sleep outdoors. As a result he suffered a number of health problems and continued to be discriminated against. He considers the present application to be his first one before the Court referring to the burning of his home, which has not been rebuilt to date. He declared that he was beaten up several times because he was of Roma origin but was too afraid to go to the police.

The Government submitted that the applicant was living at no. 78 Hădăreni at the time of the events and his house was burned down. He is currently living at the same address and his house has been rebuilt with Government funds. He is a beneficiary of the medical insurance system and receives free or subsidised medicine.

In relation to all thirty applications, all applicants consider the statements made by the Government in respect of some of them in order to prove they were not living in the village at the time of the events partial and misleading. In particular, this is because the Government relies mainly on the information provided in the applicants’ identity cards, which may not be entirely accurate, taking into consideration the lack of adequate identity and property papers available for Roma people.

The applicants also contest the Government’s allegations that some of their houses have not been affected by the conflict. They claim that all the houses have been affected.

2) The outcome of the civil proceedings

On 12 January 2001, following the discontinuance of the criminal investigation against the police officers involved in the incident and the criminal conviction and sentencing of twelve civilians, the Mureş Regional Court delivered its judgment in the civil case. The court noted that the victims had claimed compensation for pecuniary damage resulting from the destruction of the houses and their contents (furniture and so on), as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court further noted that, during the events of 20 September 1993, eighteen houses belonging to the Roma population in Hădăreni had been totally or partially destroyed and three Roma had been killed, a criminal court having found twelve villagers guilty of these acts. Basing its decision on an expert report, the court awarded compensation for pecuniary damage for those houses which had not been rebuilt in the meantime, and maintenance allowances for the children of the Roma killed during the riots. On the basis of an expert report, the court awarded compensation for pecuniary damage in respect of the partial or total destruction of the houses of six Roma. The court rejected the other applicants’ request for compensation for pecuniary damage in respect of the rebuilt houses, finding, on the basis of the same expert report, that their value was either the same as or higher than the original buildings. It further refused all applicants, including Bazil and Gabriela Moldovan (applications nos. 34568/07 and 48126/07), damages in respect of belongings and furniture, on the ground that they had not submitted documents to confirm the value of their assets.

The court finally rejected all the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage on the ground that they had not been substantiated, and that the crimes committed were not of a nature to produce such damage.

The court ordered the villagers convicted in the criminal trial to pay the damages awarded.

Relying on some procedural errors in the Mureş County Court’s judgment, some of the applicants, with the exception in particular of Bazil and Gabriela Moldovan (applications nos. 34568/07 and 48126/07), lodged an appeal with the Mureş Court of Appeal.

On 17 October 2001 the Mureş Court of Appeal found that a number of procedural errors had occurred during the public hearings on the merits before the Mureş County Court: the hearings had been held in the absence of the accused and their lawyers; one of the applicants had not been summoned; the public prosecutor had not been given leave to address the court and a number of expert reports ordered by the court had not been completed. The Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 12 January 2001 and ordered a new trial of the case.

In the second procedural cycle, the Mureş County Court delivered its judgment in the civil case on 12 May 2003. Basing its decision on an expert report drafted in 1999 and updated in 2003, the court ordered the civilians found guilty by the criminal court in respect of the destruction of the applicants’ houses to pay damages to some of the applicants for the destruction of their homes, including the following:

(a) Maria “Raria” Rostaş who was awarded EUR 6;

(b) Tiberiu Moldovan who was awarded EUR 35;

(c) Mariana Moldovan, Octavian Rostaş, Petru-Doru Lăcătuş and Tarzan-Ferdinand Lăcătuş (as heirs of Rozalia Rostaş) who were awarded jointly EUR 287.

The courts also ordered that the amounts be revised to take account of any devaluation in the national currency:

However, the court rejected all the applicants’ claims in respect of non-pecuniary damage, on the ground that they were not substantiated.

None of the above-mentioned applicants appealed against the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 May 2003.

The civil proceedings ended with the final judgment of 25 February 2005 of the Court of Cassation, with the domestic courts also awarding the appellants non-pecuniary damages.

Following the conclusion of the domestic civil proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court in respect of the twenty-five original applicants, an enforcement file was opened with the Enforcement Officers’ Office for a number of applicants, including Tiberiu Moldovan.

The applicant Tiberiu Moldovan was informed by the Enforcement Officers’ Office that the judgment had become enforceable and the applicant needed to pay the enforcement fees.

The villagers contested the enforcement proceedings of the said judgments and asked for the temporary suspension of the enforcement proceedings until their action seeking to contest the enforcement of the domestic judgments was examined by the domestic courts.

By a final President’s Order of 2 September 2005 the Luduş District Court allowed the villagers action, against, inter alia, Tiberiu Moldovan, seeking the suspension of the enforcement of the judgments delivered by the domestic civil courts. The court grounded its judgment on the potential damage that might be suffered by the third parties in the event the domestic judgments were enforced without first waiting for the outcome of the contestation of the enforcement procedure. Consequently, the court temporarily suspended the enforcement proceedings while the proceedings contesting the enforcement were still pending before the domestic courts.

By a final judgment of 19 January 2007 the Mureş County Court allowed in part the third parties’ action contesting the enforcement of the domestic judgments awarding the individuals of Roma origin civil damages following the events of 20 September 1993, on the ground that the said damages had been incorporated into the sums awarded by the European Court of Human Rights as just satisfaction or as part of the friendly settlement agreements accepted by the applicants following the Moldovan and Others judgments, cites above. The applicant Tiberiu Moldovan was not party to the proceedings, which ended on 19 January 2007, and therefore the said judgment is not applicable to him.

In a letter of 15 May 2009 addressed to the Government the Enforcement Officers’ Office stated that except for Petru Lăcătuş no other enforcement requests had been lodged by any of the creditors, Tiberiu Moldovan in particular, in the enforcement file no. 66 of 2003 concerning the domestic judgments. Moreover, even in Petru Lăcătuş’ case he withdrew his request and was reimbursed the enforcement fee he had already paid.

The Enforcement Officers’ Office also stated that according to Article 399 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure and Article 53 of Law No. 188 of 2000 any of the creditors could have brought proceedings before domestic courts against any bailiff refusing to perform his or her duties concerning any act of enforcement. However, no such proceedings were lodged by any of the applicants.

The judgment of 12 May 2003 remains unenforced to date.

3) Reconstruction of the houses destroyed during the events and the victims’ living conditions

By decision no. 636 of 19 November 1993, the Romanian government allocated ROL 25,000,000 for the reconstruction of the houses destroyed by fire on 20 September 1993. The government decided, moreover, that this amount could also be used as financial assistance for the families affected in order to help them replace items which were strictly necessary and had been destroyed during the fire. However, only four houses were rebuilt with this money and none of the families received financial assistance.

By a government decision of 30 November 1993, a commission for the coordination of the reconstruction of the houses was created. Members of this commission included the mayor of Cheţani and his deputy.

In a letter of 30 June 1994 addressed to the government, the Prefect of Mureş indicated that an additional amount of ROL 53,000,000 was needed to rebuild the remaining ten houses.

By decision no. 773 of 25 November 1994, the government granted an additional sum of ROL 32,000,000 from funds which had been earmarked for natural disasters occurring between March and September 1994. Four other houses were rebuilt. However, some of the constructions suffered from building defects.

In a letter addressed to the prefect in 1995, the mayor of Cheţani (of which Hădăreni is a part), G.G., a member of the reconstruction commission, reported that, of the fourteen houses destroyed by the fire, eight had been rebuilt or almost rebuilt. Concerning the remaining six houses, he reported that three of them posed “special problems”: in particular, one of the houses to be rebuilt was on land near the family of the non-Rom victim (Cheţan Crăciun), who refused to have Gypsy families living close by. Another problem mentioned by the mayor was the house of the late mother of two of the Roma who had died during the 1993 events. It appeared that after the events the Lăcătuş family had moved to the city of Luduş, so the mayor had proposed that a house be built for them at a place of their choice.

4) The steps taken by the respondent Government following the judgments of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1 and2), cited above, with the aim of improving the applicants’ living conditions

On 4 May 2006 the Government published in Official Journal No. 385 the Development Programme for the Community of Hădăreni for 2006-2008 (the Programme) which had previously been adopted. The Programme allocated 3,487,000 new Romanian lei (RON) for a number of areas, such as education (including health and justice education), combating discrimination, prevention of domestic or community violence, professional training, employment, culture, development of infrastructure and so on.

On 17 July 2007 the responsibility for the implementation of the Programme was transferred to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) which in turn contributed 10% of the total sum allocated for the 2007-08 period. The NAR was charged with the supervision and appraisal of the implementation process.

The NAR, the Cheţani Mayor’s Office and a local initiative group discussed the priority task that needed to be performed taking into account the available budget.

By the end of 2007 six houses affected by the events of 1993 had been rebuilt inside.

According to the report of 6 October 2008 concerning the prospects for the Hădăreni Roma community, Government Decision No. 734 of 11 July 2007 had allocated in 2007 ROL 9,000,000,000 for the implementation of the Programme. The money was used to build twelve kilometres of paved roads, to rehabilitate six houses, to install a heating system for the school and to partially refurbish the school and the local activities centre.

Between September 2006 and December 2007 a number of awareness raising campaigns, workshops and training sessions were organised with the involvement of the local Roma community, the authorities, the media and the police force. They focused mainly on combating discrimination, access to public health services and to education, inter-ethnic communication and professional qualification for professions in demand on the labour market.

By Government Decision No. 980 of 29 August 2008, the Government allocated RON 2,160,000 to the NAR in order for the Agency to be able to continue the implementation of the Programme. The UNDP also contributed RON 133,488 during 2008.

The activities performed over the course of the year included: the complete rehabilitation of six houses; the drafting of building plans for three other houses, a medical centre and an industrial building for those who are economically active; the signing of a contract for the building of a local school and the refurbishment of the local activities centre.

According to appraisal reports of 13 and 17 March, 2 and 29 April and 6 and 12 May 2009 the local kindergarten, the local activities centre and the local school have all been entirely rebuilt and all the building defects previously identified repaired.

Also, the local authorities have drafted a detailed action plan for the year 2009, which included as a first stage the encouragement of inter-ethnic and social dialogue, of community cooperation and of the development of economic activities in the region.

The second stage of the plan concerned the building of three new homes, the rehabilitation of ten others, encouraging profitable activities in the region and the organisation of awareness-raising seminars in respect of themes such as post-ethnic-conflict regions.

The above-mentioned action plan for 2009 extended the time frame of the initial Programme until 31 December 2009. The necessary budget was estimated at RON 1,750,045 with the Government and the UNDP providing the financial support, while further information of the implementation of the action plan would be provided to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe as per its latest decision of September 2010.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant legal provisions, including the relevant provisions of the Romanian Civil Code, Code on Civil and Criminal Procedure, Law No. 188/2000 concerning enforcement officers, and the relevant case-law, are set forth in the judgments Moldovan and Others v. Romania (nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 79-85, 12 July 2005); Ursu v. Romania (no. 58670/00, (dec.), 3 May 2005); Kalanyos v. Romania (no. 57884/00, (dec.), 9 December 2003); Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005; and Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006).

Civil Code

111. Articles 998 and 999 of the Civil Code provide that any person who has suffered damage can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who has intentionally or negligently caused it.

Code of Civil Procedure

Article 399 § 1

“Against the enforcemnet or any acts of enforcement, any person, including any person who has suffered a damage as a result of the enforcement can contest the enforcement proceedings. At the same time... the enforcement proceedings can be contested ... when the enforcement officer refuses to carry out an act of enforcement as required by the applicable legal provisions.”

Case-law of the domestic courts

The Government submitted a number of final judgments delivered between 1996 and 2009 by both criminal and civil domestic courts belonging to various territorial jurisdictions. The civil proceedings brought by victims of various unlawful acts committed either by third parties or by state agents whose criminal liability had been established have been allowed and the victims have been awarded compensation. In all the cases the said victims have either joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties or have brought separate actions for compensation on the basis of general tort law, namely Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code.

COMPLAINTS

In application no. 31071/06, the applicant Adrian “Costică” Moldovan complains under Article 2 of the Convention that his wife Maria Moldovan was beaten up by a police officer at the time of the events and that she died afterwards as a result of the shock and fear caused by the beating;

In all applications, the applicants complain under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention about their living conditions after the events of September 1993 in so far as, following the destruction of their homes, the omission of the authorities to remedy the situation and the villagers’ attitude towards them, they were forced to totally or partially abandon their homes and seek refuge in the forest or with their relatives, and to live in poor and cramped conditions, which affected their health;

Invoking either expressly or in substance Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:

a) in application no. 31016/04, the applicant Tiberiu Moldovan complains that the judgment of 12 May 2003 of the Mureş County Court, which awarded him pecuniary damage for the destruction of his home, has not been enforced;

b) in applications nos. 14538/04 (in particular Ancuţa-Lucreţia, Petruţa Maria and Iuliu Lăcătuş); 142/05; 5395/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31071/06 (in particular Nicolae-Florin and Maria Moldovan); 31077/06; 31546/06; 38813/06 and 1415/08 (in particular Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş) the applicants complain that, given that they were under age at the time of the events, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not discharge its legal obligation under Article 45 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure to represent their interests over the course of the domestic proceedings and to ask for compensation in their names;

c) in applications nos. 8229/04; 142/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 23901/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31063/06; 31071/06; 31077/06; 31079/06; 31546/06; 38813/06; 4672/07; 7909/07; 34568/07 and 48126/07 the applicants complain of excessive length of the civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy;

Relying expressly or in substance on Article 14 taken either alone or together with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention:

a) in applications nos. 8229/04 (in particular Radu-Mihai Rostaş); 14538/04 (in particular Rada-Didina Moldovan, Petruţa-Maria, Iuliu and Petru-Valentin Lăcătuş); 142/05; 5395/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 23901/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31063/06; 31071/06 (in particular Nicolae Florin Moldovan); 31077/06; 31079/06; 38813/06; 4672/07 (in particular Sibianca-Lămîiţa Lăcătuş) and 1415/08 the applicants complain that they were discriminated against on the basis of their ethnic origin by their school teachers and colleagues;

b) in applications nos. 8229/04; 142/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 23901/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31063/06; 31071/06; 31077/06; 31079/06; 31546/06; 38813/06; 4672/07; 7909/07; 34568/07 and 48126/07 the applicants complain that the Mureş County Court judges made discriminatory remarks about Roma people;

Invoking expressly or in substance Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention:

a) in application no. 31016/04, the applicant Tiberiu Moldovan complains that the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 May 2003 awarding him pecuniary damages for the destruction of his home was not enforced;

b) in applications nos. 12713/04; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31071/06; 31077/06; 31546/06 and 38813/06 the applicants complain that their homes have not been rebuilt by the authorities.

THE LAW

In view of the similarity of the applications in terms of both fact and law, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.

1. Alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention

Relying on Article 2 of the Convention the applicant Adrian “Costică” Moldovan (application no. 31071/06) complained that during the events of 20 September 1993 his wife Maria Moldovan was beaten up by police officers and that she died as a result of the shock and fear caused by the beating.

Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

The Court notes that the events the applicant is complaining of happened in September 1993, prior to the ratification of the Convention by Romania on 20 June 1994.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint is incompatible ratione temporis and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

2. Alleged violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention

The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the destruction of their homes and the discrimination they were subjected to by the authorities had deprived them of the use of their houses and belongings, forcing them to live in very poor and cramped conditions.

Article 3 reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 8 of the Convention provides as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

a) Competence ratione materiae

The Government submitted that the applicants who had been parties to the Court’s judgment on friendly settlement of 5 July 2005, in particular Lucaci Moldovan, Adrian “Costică” Moldovan, Valentina Rostaş, Bazil-Sami Lăcătuş and Octavian Rostaş, can no longer claim to be victims within the meaning of the Convention, as their complaints are essentially the same as the ones raised in their previous applications and have already been examined by the Court. Moreover, the applicants have been awarded damages by the Court varying between EUR 11,000 and EUR 23,000. At the same time, the houses of Adrian “Costică” Moldovan and Octavian Rostaş and the home of Valentina Rostaş have also been rebuilt by 1995 using Government funds. Finally, the house of Adrian “Costică” Moldovan requires only some maintenance work (replacement of six windows, four doors, the reinforcement of the rear walls of the house, installation of drainpipes and paving around the foundations), while Octavian Rostaş is currently living in his house (no. 78 Hădăreni) with his family.

119. The applicants disagreed and argue either expressly or in substance that even after the Court delivered its judgment in the cases of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 1), cited above, their homes have still not been completely repaired or in some cases even rebuilt to date and they continue to reside in inappropriate living conditions.

The Court notes from the outset that, in her letter of 29 July 2008 (see above § 23), Maria-Gherghina Lăcătuş expressly stated that she was a party to the friendly settlement proceedings before the Court of 5 July 2005. Consequently, it considers that the Government’s preliminary objection and its decision concerning the objection also apply to the said applicant.

The Court observes that, although the applicants have formulated their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the circumstances of their cases require it to have regard to Article 46 of the Convention, which states:

“1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

2. The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.”

Moreover, the Court considers that the Government’s preliminary objection in respect of the six applicants’ lack of victim status must be examined as an objection to the Court’s competence ratione materiae to examine the six applicants’ present applications.

For the Court, the applicants’ argument that a new breach of Articles 3 and 8 has been committed rests essentially on their view that by not completely rebuilding and repairing their homes, the domestic authorities have failed to give effect to its acceptance of the Government’s friendly-settlement declaration submitted in the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 1), § 29, cited above, and that the failure in itself amounts to new problems under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

However, the Court points out that the finding in that judgment was essentially declaratory (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 25, § 38). It further observes that in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention the High Contracting Parties have undertaken to abide by the final judgments of the Court in any case to which they are parties, execution being supervised by the Committee of Ministers (see, mutatis mutandis, Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (former Article 50) judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330-B, pp. 58-59, § 34). It follows, inter alia, that a judgment of the Court imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded to the applicants, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to redress so far as possible the effects of the interference (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 43, ECHR 2002 -), and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).

As regards the cases of Maria-Gherghina Lăcătuş, Lucaci Moldovan, Adrian “Costică” Moldovan, Valentina Rostaş, Bazil-Sami Lăcătuş and Octavian Rostaş, the Court notes firstly that the Government has started the implementation of the Development Programme for the Community of Hădăreni and, secondly, that the Government have paid the sums awarded to the applicants in its friendly settlement judgment, which also covered any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. As to the specific measures which might still need to be taken to afford restitutio in integrum, the Court considers that unlike in the case of Verein Gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2), [GC], no. 32772/02, § 67, 30 June 2009, where the Committee of Ministers had ended its supervision of the Court’s judgment without having taken into account relevant new information, in the present cases this remains a matter of ongoing discussion between the Committee of Ministers and the respondent Government. It reiterates that, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court’s judgment (see the above-cited Scozzari and Giunta judgment, § 249).

This is not to say that measures taken by a respondent State in the post-judgment phase to afford redress to an applicant fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court. It may, for example, take account of what has been done at the national level in cases where it has reserved the issue of Article 41 (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland (former Article 50) judgment of 31 January 1995, Series A no. 305-A, and Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (former Article 50) judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C). Furthermore, it may entertain a complaint that a retrial at the domestic level by way of implementation of one of its judgments gives rise to a new breach of the Convention (see Hertel v. Switzerand (dec), no. 53440/99, 17.01.2002).

However, neither of these considerations applies in the instant case. Moreover, the Court observes that it has already held that the examination of the alleged ineffectiveness of the measures proposed as a result of the friendly settlement and of their implementation falls entirely to the Committee of Ministers within the execution proceedings (see Kalanyos v. Romania, application no. 57884/00, § 30, 26 April 2007). Consequently, the matters the applicants complained about form part of the measures adopted in pursuance of the Court’s initial friendly settlement judgment and thus fall within the scope of the supervision exercised by the Committee of Ministers and outside the scope of the supervision exercised by the Court.

Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds that the applications of Maria-Gherghina Lăcătuş (application no. 14538/04), Lucaci Moldovan (application no. 5395/05), Adrian “Costică” Moldovan (application no. 31071/06), Valentina Rostaş (application no. 4672/07), Bazil-Sami Lăcătuş (application no. 55152/08) and Octavian Rostaş (application no. 55168/08) are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and therefore inadmissible in application of Article 35 § 4.

b) Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies

The Government submitted that all the remaining applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies in respect of their complaints to the Court.

The Government argued that any interested party who had been affected by the events of 20 September 1993 and was seeking to obtain compensation for alleged breaches of their rights could have either joined the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers and third parties who burned down or destroyed their houses and homes, as civil parties, or lodged a separate action for compensation on the basis of general tort law, namely Articles 998-999 of the Romanian Civil Code (“the CC”).

Some of the applicants, however, have never either personally or through their legal representatives (in the case of minor or incapacitated children) brought proceedings in respect of any alleged breaches of their rights or damages they may have suffered as a result of the events of 20 September 1993. Others, although they joined the domestic proceedings as civil parties, have not appealed against the judgments of the first-instance courts, in particular the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 May 2003. Thus, before submitting their allegations to the Court, the applicants were obliged to exhaust the available remedies capable of affording them adequate redress. Consequently, the situation of the present applicants is different from that of the applicants party to the previous proceedings before the Court, in particular Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2), cited above, in so far as the latter joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties, appealed against the judgment of 12 May 2003 and, therefore, exhausted the available domestic remedies.

Finally, the Government consider that a civil action by the applicants would have enabled the domestic courts to decide the cases on their merits and award just satisfaction to the applicants for any alleged damage they might have suffered. They consider that the remedies in question were available to the applicants, were sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged and were sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice. In supporting their arguments they referred to the Court’s finding in the case of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2), § 121, cited above, that the civil action brought by the victims of the events against the civilians, who had been found guilty by the criminal courts, claiming compensation in respect of their living conditions following the destruction of their homes, was successful and effective and the applicants were granted compensation.

The applicants did not submit any observations on this point.

The Court reiterates that the object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address allegations made of a violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, 28 April 2004, and Kudla v. Poland [GC] no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).

Under Article 35 of the Convention, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies that are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, § 27, and Dalia v. France, no. 26102/95, § 38, ECHR 1998-I).

In respect of the present cases and on the basis of the available evidence the Court notes that the civil action available to the applicants, either by joining the criminal proceedings as civil parties or by bringing separate actions for compensation on the basis of general tort law, namely Articles 998-999 of the CC, does indeed institute a procedure by which the applicant could have complained before the domestic courts in respect of their poor and cramped living conditions following the destruction of their homes and the discriminatory attitude of the authorities and could have claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation. Moreover, the Court observes that it has already held that such an action was successful and effective, notwithstanding the fact that it could have been lodged with a reasonable prospect of success only against the civilians who had been found guilty by the criminal court of the destruction of their homes (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania, (no. 2), § 121, cited above).

The Court observes, however, that the large majority of the applicants have neither joined the criminal proceedings brought against those responsible for the destruction of their homes as civil parties, nor have they or their legal representatives (in the case of minor and/or incapacitated children) lodged separate actions for compensation on the basis of general tort law, namely Articles 998-999 of the C. C. At the same time, the applicants who joined the criminal proceedings brought against those responsible for the destruction of their homes as civil parties failed to appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court, in particular the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 May 2003, without providing objective reasons. Furthermore, none of the applicants who were not party to the civil proceedings have presented any evidence that a separate civil action on the basis of general tort law would have been ineffective in their particular cases.

Finally, the Court notes that an examination of the applicants’ complaints as they have been submitted, including an examination carried out of its own motion, does not disclose any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicants, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from exhausting the domestic remedies at their disposal.

It follows that these complaints lodged by all the remaining applicants must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Having found firstly that the complaints of the six applicants who had previously been party to the friendly settlement proceedings before the Court fail to fall under its competence ratione materiae, and secondly that the remaining applicants have not exhausted the effective domestic remedies in respect of these complaints, the Court does not need to look into the other pleas of inadmissibility raised by the Government with regard to some of the same applicants.

3. Alleged violation of Article 6 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

141. Relying either expressly or in substance on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention: a) the applicant Tiberiu Moldovan (application no. 31016/04) complained that the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 May 2003 awarding him pecuniary damages for the destruction of his home remains unenforced to date and b) the applicants in applications nos. 14538/04 (in particular Ancuţa-Lucreţia, Petruţa-Maria and Iuliu Lăcătuş); 142/05; 5395/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31071/06 (in particular Nicolae-Florin and Maria Moldovan); 31077/06; 31546/06; 38813/06 and 1415/08 (in particular Tarzan-Ferdinand Rostaş) complained that, in so far as the applicants were minors at the time of the events, the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to discharge its legal obligation under Article 45 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure to represent their interests over the course of the domestic proceedings and ask for compensation in their names.

Article 6 reads as follows:

“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 to the Convention provides as follows:

“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 interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

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.”

a) Non-enforcement of the judgment of 12 May 2003

The Government submitted that the applicant Tiberiu Moldovan (application no. 31016/04) had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They argued that effective domestic remedies were available in the domestic law against any act or omission on the part of enforcement officers which would have enabled the applicant to enforce the said judgment.

The Government further argued, inter alia, that the applicant did not request the enforcement officer to have the judgment enforced in accordance with Article 399 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure. Moreover, the Government submitted that the applicant neither contested the enforcement proceedings on the basis of the procedure provided for by Article 399 § 1 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, nor did he bring proceedings, including disciplinary proceedings, before the domestic authorities and courts against the enforcement officer on the basis of the procedure provided for by Articles 53 and 58 of Law No. 188/2000 concerning enforcement officers. Finally, the Government argued that the remedies the applicant could have used were available and sufficient, that is capable of providing redress for his complaints (see Stögmuller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A. n^o 9, p. 42, § 62, and De Wilde, Ooms et Versyp c. Belgique, judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A n^o 12, p. 34).

The applicant did not submit observations on this point.

The Court finds that it is not necessary to examine whether the applicant has exhausted the available domestic remedies as, even assuming that he has done so, the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

The Court reiterates that execution of a final judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 II). However, a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002 III) and the right of “access to court” does not impose an obligation on a State to execute every judgment of a civil character without having regard to the particular circumstances of the case (see Sanglier v. France, no. 50342/99, § 39, 27 May 2003). The Court notes that State responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against a private party extends no further than the involvement of State bodies in the enforcement procedures. When the authorities are obliged to act in order to enforce a judgment and they fail to do so, their inaction can engage the State’s responsibility under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Cebotari and Others v. Moldova, nos. 37763/04, 37712/04, 35247/04, 35178/04 and 34350/04, § 39, 27 January 2009).

In this case, the dispute was between two private parties. Consequently, the Court notes that it is for each State to equip itself with legal instruments which are adequate and sufficient to ensure the fulfilment of positive obligations imposed upon the State. The Court’s only task is to examine whether the measures applied by the authorities in the present case were adequate and sufficient (see Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, § 66, 17 June 2003). In cases such as the present one, which necessitate actions by a debtor who is a private person, the State, as the possessor of the public authority, has to act diligently in order to assist a creditor with the execution of a judgment (see Fociac v. Romania, no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005).

The Court notes, in respect of the enforcement measures taken by the domestic authorities, that an enforcement file was opened by the enforcement officer in respect of the said judgment. The applicant was informed of the existence of the enforcement file and was invited to pay the enforcement fee. However, no enforcement request has been lodged by the applicant with the enforcement officer to date. Moreover, since the judgment of 12 May 2003 became final the applicant has not raised any complaint before the domestic authorities or courts about a refusal by the enforcement officer to assist him in the enforcement of the said judgment. Consequently, the Court notes that there is no evidence in the file to suggest that the domestic authorities have failed to discharge their obligation to assist the applicant with the enforcement of the said judgment.

The Court reiterates that although it is not for the applicant to provide the enforcement officer with the necessary means for the enforcement of the judgment (see Ruianu, cited above, § 68), he must nonetheless act with a certain diligence in order to ensure its enforcement (see Topciov v. Romania (dec.), no. 17369/02, 15 June 2006). Moreover, it is the applicant’s responsibility to make use of the available domestic legal means or to ask the domestic authorities to assist him with the enforcement of the judgment (see Ciprova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), n^o 33273/03, 22 March 2005). Finally, the Court observes that, according to the domestic legislation, the enforcement officer did not have a positive obligation to initiate of his own motion the enforcement of the judgment.

Thus, unlike the cases of Ruianu, cited above, and Pini and others v. Romania (nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, § 177, ECHR 2004 V) where the applicants have taken constant measures for the enforcement of the judgment, in the present case the applicant did not lodge any enforcement request with the enforcement officer, nor did he complain to the domestic authorities that no action had been taken.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that in this case the State does not appear to have failed to provide the applicant with adequate and sufficient measures to ensure the execution of the judgment by him, a private person.

Having regard to its findings in respect of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that there was no interference with the applicant’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

b) Failure of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to discharge its legal obligation under Article 45 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure

The Court notes from the outset that some of the applicants raised this complaint after their cases had been communicated to the respondent Government. However, even assuming that all applicants would have raised this complaint prior to communication, the Court notes that Article 45 of the Romanian Code on Civil Procedure provides in the case of minor or incapacitated individuals that the Public Prosecutor’s Office “can” lodge a civil action if it considers that an action is required for the protection of the rights and best interest of the minor or incapacitated person. Consequently, the Public Prosecutor’s Office does not have a legal obligation to lodge proceedings in order to protect all minors and incapacitated people in general. It is simply legally possible to exercise such a right, which it did not consider necessary in the applicants’ case.

At the same time the Court observes that all the applicants had parents or legal representatives who were either themselves parties to the proceedings or could have introduced the applicants as parties to the civil proceedings, but who failed to do so. Consequently, the Court considers that no restriction was imposed on the applicants’ right of access to court.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. Alleged violation of Articles 6 and 14 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention

Relying either expressly or in substance on Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention: a) the applicants in applications nos. 8229/04; 142/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 23901/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31063/06; 31071/06; 31077/06; 31079/06; 31546/06; 38813/06; 4672/07; 7909/07; 34568/07 and 48126/07, having regard to the Court’s finding in the case of Moldovan and Others (no. 2) of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of proceedings and of Article 14 taken together with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention in respect of discriminatory remarks made by the domestic judicial bodies and officials, complained of excessive length of the civil proceedings for compensation and the lack of an effective remedy, and that the Mureş County Court judges had made discriminatory remarks about Roma people; while b) the applicants in applications nos. 8229/04 (in particular Radu-Mihai Rostaş); 14538/04 (in particular Rada-Didina Moldovan, Petruţa-Maria, Iuliu and Petru-Valentin Lăcătuş); 142/05; 5395/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 23901/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31063/06; 31071/06 (in particular Nicolae Florin Moldovan); 31077/06; 31079/06; 38813/06; 4672/07 (in particular Sibianca-Lămîiţa Lăcătuş) and 1415/08 complained of discrimination on the basis of their ethnic origin by their school teachers and colleagues.

The relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time...”

Article 14 reads as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other statues.”

a) Length of proceedings and discriminatory remarks made by the Mureş County Court judges

The Court notes that except for Adrian “Costică” Moldovan (application no. 31071/06), Valentina Rostaş (application no. 4672/07), Bazil Moldovan (application no. 34568/07) and Gabriela Moldovan (application no. 48126/07) none of the other applicants were party to the domestic proceedings. Consequently, the Court considers that they cannot claim to be victims, within the meaning of the Convention, of a violation of their rights guaranteed therein and therefore their applications are inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.

In respect of Adrian “Costică” Moldovan (application no. 31071/06) and Valentina Rostaş (application no. 4672/07) the Court notes that the same applicants raising the same complaints were also parties to the previous proceedings before the Court. Consequently, the Court considers that their complaints are substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by it.

Finally, in respect of Bazil Moldovan (application no. 34568/07) and Gabriela Moldovan (application no. 48126/07) the Court notes that the two applicants failed to appeal against the Mureş County Court judgment of 12 January 2001. At the same time, it observes that the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court on 8 August and 11 October 2007 respectively. Consequently their complaint falls outside the six-month time limit.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints in applications nos. 8229/04; 142/05; 15998/05; 11382/06; 20818/06; 23901/06; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31063/06; 31071/06; 31077/06; 31079/06; 31546/06; 38813/06; 4672/07; 7909/07; 34568/07 and 48126/07 are inadmissible and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

b) Discrimination in school on the basis of their ethnic origin

The Court notes from the outset that some of the applicants raised this complaint only after their applications had been communicated to the respondent Government. Even assuming that all the applicants would have lodged their complaint prior to the communication of their application to the respondent Government, the Court observes that the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made, at least in substance, to the appropriate domestic body, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Cardot v. France, A 200 (1991); 13 EHRR 853 para 34).

The Court notes, however, in respect of the present cases, that there is no evidence in the file to support the applicants’ allegations. Moreover, they did not bring any domestic proceedings against their teachers and colleagues, nor did they bring to the attention of the domestic authorities the discriminatory practices they stated they had been subjected to.

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

5. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 12713/04; 24223/06; 25773/06; 31071/06; 31077/06; 31546/06 and 38813/06 complained that their homes have not been rebuilt to date.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides as follows:

Having regard that the applicants’ complaint is closely linked to the Court’s findings concerning Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see paragraphs 127 and 138, above), it considers that it is not necessary to examine it, nor to examine whether in the present cases there has been a violation of the said provision (see, mutatis mutandis, among others, Laino v. Italy [GC], n^o 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999 I ; Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, series A n^o 194 C, p. 47, § 23; Glod v. Romania, n^o 41134/98, § 46, 16 September 2003 ; and Albina v. Romania, n^o 57808/00, § 42, 28 April 2005).

For these reasons, the Court

Decides, unanimously, to join the applications;

Declares, by a majority, the applications inadmissible.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President

Case no. and introduction date

Name of the applicant(s) and date of birth

Relationship between the applicants

8229/04, 5 February 2004

1. MOLDOVAN Costică (1964)

2. ROSTAŞ Radu-Cristureanu (1977)

3. ROSTAŞ Călina (1981)

4. ROSTAŞ Lenuţa (1982)

5. MOLDOVAN Nadia (1983)

6. ROSTAŞ Claudiu (1985)

7. MOLDOVAN Virgil-Sorin (1985)

8. ROSTAŞ Cosmin-Sebastian (1986)

9. MOLDOVAN Loredana (1989)

10. ROSTAŞ Radu-Mihai (1989)

Radu-Cristureanu is the son of Maria “Raria” Rostaş (application no. 8234/04).

Călina, Nadia and Virgil-Sorin are the children of Melenuţa MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o2), cited above).

Lenuţa, Claudiu, Cosmin-Sebastian and Radu-Mihai are the children of Otilia ROSTAŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o2), (§§ 23-26, cited above).

Loredana is the daughter of Costică Moldovan.

8234/04, 3 February 2004

11. ROSTAŞ Maria “Raria” (1937)

The applicant is the mother of Radu-Cristureanu Rostaş (application no. 8229/04).

12713/04,

5 March 2004

12. ROSTAŞ Sibianca-Niculina (1967)

The applicant is the mother of Sibianca-Lămîiţa Lăcătuş (application no. 4672/07).

12722/04,

5 March 2004

13. MOLDOVAN Dănuţ (1972)

The applicant is the son of Maria Moldovan (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o2), cited above).

13129/04,

15 April 2004

14. ROSTAŞ Alexandrina (1963)

The applicant is the daughter of Maria Moldovan (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o2), cited above).

14538/04, 22 March 2004

15. LĂCĂTUŞ Maria-Gherghina (1953)

16. LĂCĂTUŞ Ancuţa-Lucreţia (1976)

17. MOLDOVAN Rada-Didina (1974)

18. LĂCĂTUŞ Florina (1972)

19. LĂCĂTUŞ Petruţa-Maria (1981)

20. LĂCĂTUŞ Iuliu (1979)

21. LĂCĂTUŞ Petru-Valentin (1984)

Maria-Gherghina is the wife of Petru “Gruia” LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan an Others v. Roumanie (n^o2), cited above) and was herself party to the proceedings before the Court (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1), cited above).

The remaining applicants are the children of Maria-Gherghina and of Petru “Gruia” LǍCǍTUŞ.

31016/04,

19 April 2004

22. MOLDOVAN Tiberiu (1954)

23. ROSTAS Ţiţo (1963)

24. MOLDOVAN Lidia-Sonia (1981)

25. ROSTAŞ Florin (1982)

26. MOLDOVAN Crîsmaru (1984)

27. MOLDOVAN Petrică-Cidu (1985)

28. MOLDOVAN Maria-Gabi (1986)

29. ROSTAŞ Dolfi (1980)

30. MOLDOVAN Olga-Mirela (1990)

Ţiţo is the wife of Tiberiu.

The remaining applicants are their children.

142/05,

26 November 2004

31. LĂCĂTUŞ Ionel-Dafin (1985)

The applicant is the grandson of Adrian “Costică” and Maria Moldovan (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1), cited above).

5395/05, 28 January 2005

32. MOLDOVAN Lucaci (1953)

33. MOLDOVAN Sangowia-Persida (1978)

34. MOLDOVAN Minerva-Anişoara (1980)

35. MOLDOVAN Adrian-Codin (1982)

36. MOLDOVAN Cosmina-Rita (1983)

37. MOLDOVAN Iancu-Iosif (1987)

Lucaci was a party to the proceedings before the Court (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1), cited above).

The remaining applicants are his children.

15998/05,

14 April 2005

38. LĂCĂTUŞ Nicolae-Romică (1989)

39. LĂCĂTUŞ Petrică-Florin (1985)

40. LĂCĂTUŞ Ovidiu-Stelian (1986)

The applicants are the children of Petru “Petrişor” LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1), cited above).

11382/06, 26 January 2006

41. ROSTAŞ Eleonora (1977)

The applicant is the daughter of Octavian and Eleonora Rostaş (see Moldovan and Others v. Romania (n^o1), cited above).

20818/06,

15 May 2006

42. MOLDOVAN Radu-Iţoc (1978)

43. MOLDOVAN Sandi-Adrian (1978)

44. MOLDOVAN Aurica (1981)

45. MOLDOVAN Elena (1985)

46. MOLDOVAN Bazil-Cozmin (1990)

47. MOLDOVAN Robert-Ştefan (1991)

48. MOLDOVAN Bobi-Aladin (1993)

49. MOLDOVAN Geta-Romina (1989)

50. MOLDOVAN Lenuca-Petruţa (1988)

51. MOLDOVAN Crina-Simina (1992)

Radu-Iţoc, Sandi-Adrian, Aurica and Elena are the children of Lucreţia and Bazil MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

Bazil-Cosmin, Robert-Ştefan and Bobi-Aladin are the children of Bazil and Luminiţa MOLDOVAN and the grandchildren of Lucreţia and Bazil MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

Geta-Romina, Lenuca-Petruţa and Crina-Simina are the children of Petru and Gabriela MOLDOVAN and grandchildren of Lucreţia and Bazil MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

23901/06,

26 May 2006

52. ROSTAŞ Sanda-Alexandrina (1964)

The applicant is the daughter of Ghioloanca LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

23965/06,

9 May 2006

53. LĂCĂTUŞ Simona-Cerasela (1972)

54. LĂCĂTUŞ Isaura-Garofiţa (1991)

55. LĂCĂTUŞ Sebastian-Loţi (1992)

Isaura-Garofiţa and Sebastian-Loţi are the children of Simona-Cerasela.

24223/06,

16 May 2006

56. LĂCĂTUŞ Cosmin Florin (1991)

The applicant is the son of Bazil-Sami LǍCǍTUŞ and the grand-son of Ghioloanca LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

25773/06,

20 June 2006

57. MOLDOVAN Adrian Silviu (1987)

58. MOLDOVAN Adriana (1989)

59. MOLDOVAN Sabina (1972)

The applicants are the children of Adrian “Cîinele” and Silvia MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

31063/06,

20 July 2006

60. MOLDOVAN Maria (1981)

The applicant is the daughter of Maria LǍCǍTUŞ (Maria-Gheorghina LǍCǍTUŞ) (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

31071/06,

24 July 2006

61. MOLDOVAN Adrian “Costică” (1943)

62. MOLDOVAN Nicolae-Florin (1980)

63. MOLDOVAN Maria (1978)

Adrian “Costică” was party to the proceedings before the Court (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

The remaining applicants are his children.

31077/06,

16 May 2006

64. LĂCĂTUŞ Mirabela (1990)

The applicant is the daughter of Bazil-Sami LǍCǍTUŞ and granddaughter of Ghioloanca LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

31079/06,

20 July 2006

65. MATEI Ramona Paraschiva (1988)

66. MATEI Mirela Geanina (1985)

67. MATEI Gabriel Marius (1980)

68. MATEI Aurel (1977)

The applicants are siblings.

31546/06,

2 August 2006

69. MOLDOVAN Costel (1976)

The applicant is the son of Adrian “Costică” MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

38813/06,

26 September 2006

70. MOLDOVAN Cristinel (1977)

The applicant is the son of Adrian “Costică” MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

4672/07,

21 December 2006

71. ROSTAŞ Valentina (1964)

72. RAD Sibianca-Codruţa (1989)

73. RAD Rica-Narcisa (1987)

74. LĂCĂTUŞ Sibianca-Lamîiţa (1992)

Valentina was party to the proceedings before the Court (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

Sibianca-Codruţa and Rica-Narcisa are her daughters.

Sibianca-Lamîiţa is the daughter of Sibianca-Niculina Rostaş (application no. 12713/04).

7909/07,

21 December 2006

75. LĂCĂTUŞ Zica (1972)

76. LĂCĂTUŞ Ferdinand-Auraş (1991)

Zica and Ferdinand-Auraş are the wife and son of Ferdinand LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

15949/07,

29 January 2007

77. LĂCĂTUŞ Petru (1991)

78. LĂCĂTUŞ Meda (1992)

Petru and Meda are the children of Petru “Gălbinuş” LǍCǍTUŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

34568/07,

8 August 2007

79. MOLDOVAN Bazil (1967)

The applicant is the son of Bazil and Lucreţia Moldovan (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

48126/07,

11 October 2007

80. MOLDOVAN Gabriela (1972)

The applicant is the daughter of Bazil and Lucreţia MOLDOVAN (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

1415/08,

26 November 2007

81. MOLDOVAN Mariana (1979)

82. ROSTAŞ Octavian (1981)

83. LĂCĂTUŞ Petru Doru (1982)

84. ROSTAŞ Tarzan Ferdinand (1985)

Mariana is the daughter of Rozalia ROSTAŞ (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

The remaining applicants are her siblings.

55152/08,

5 November 2008

85. LĂCĂTUŞ Bazil Sami

The applicant was a party to the proceedings before the Court (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

55168/08, 5 November 2008

86. ROSTAŞ Octavian (1958)

The applicant was a party to the proceedings before the Court (see Moldovan and Others v. Roumanie (n^o1), cited above).

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/374.html

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Costica MOLDOVAN and Others v Romania - 8229/04 [2011] ECHR 374 (15 February 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/374.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 374