CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFC1B4D41 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D7F0777 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sBF1D92B9 { width:173.61pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 40913/05 Maria BĂLĂNUŢĂ and Others against Romania and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 26   March 2013 as a Committee composed of   : Luis López Guerra, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the appended applications, Having regard to the judgment Albu and Others v. Romania , no.   34796/09 and 63 other applications, 10   May   2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants, who are former employees of a glass company, S., and of an oil production company, P. (“the companies”), is set out in the appendix. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented successively by their Agents, Mr Răzvan-Horațiu Radu and Ms Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants submitted civil actions before the courts requesting from their employer various allowances as provided for in the applicable collective labour agreements, such as compensatory salaries for dismissal and social allowances. By final court decisions delivered between 2005 and 2006 in the litigations with company S., and in 2009 in the litigation with company P., the applicants’ actions were dismissed. The courts held that the applicants were either not entitled to the requested benefits or that the requested benefits had already been included and paid as part of their basic salary. B.     Relevant domestic regulations The relevant extracts of the domestic regulations are described in the case of Tunaru v. Romania (no.   66381/09 (dec.), § 8, 13   November   2012) and in the case of Radu v. Romania (no.   35526/09 (dec.), §   7, 11   September   2012). COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 6   §   1 and 14 of the Convention, and under Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention that cases similar to theirs had reached a different outcome based on a divergent interpretation of the same legal provisions, in breach of the principle of legal certainty. They also complain that they had been deprived of their possessions and that they had been discriminated against in comparison with other employees who were in a position similar to theirs and who received the requested allowances. Some of the applicants also complained about the non-enforcement of decisions delivered by the county courts, prior to their quashing by the courts of appeal. THE LAW Having regard to the similarity of the main issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and examine them in a single decision. The Government contended that the domestic decisions reaching a different conclusion than that in the applicants’ cases were isolated and could not be considered as having created a divergence of interpretation. Also, the Government argued that applications should be declared inadmissible on the ground that the applicants had not suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35   §   3 (b) of the Convention as amended by Protocol No.   14. The applicants reiterated their submissions made upon lodging their applications with the Court and submitted decisions of domestic courts granting some of the requested allowances. The third-party intervener, the oil company P., argued that the majority of domestic courts had dismissed the claims brought by former employees of the companies, by which they had sought to obtain various allowances. Therefore, the principle of legal certainty had not been breached. The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility criterion provided under Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention, as the present applications are manifestly-ill founded for the reasons developed hereunder. In Tunaru (§§ 18-22) and Radu (§§ 16-17), decisions cited above, the Court found, in the light of the principles laid down in Albu and Others, cited above (§§ 34 and 38), that the alleged divergent interpretations of collective labour agreements regarding the same allowances as in the present cases did not give rise to a violation of the provisions of the Convention and its Protocols relied upon by the applicants. The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints in the present cases are identical to those that were rejected in the above cited cases of Tunaru and Radu . With reference to the detailed reasoning set out in Tunaru and Radu , the Court finds that the above complaints are similarly manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Concerning the complaint, made by some of the applicants, about the alleged non-enforcement of decisions delivered by the county courts, the Court notes that the decisions were not final and that they had been quashed by the courts of appeal. Therefore, it can not be considered that the guarantees under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention enjoyed by the applicants during the judicial phase of the proceedings were rendered devoid of purpose. It follows that this complaint should be rejected as being manifestly ill ‑ founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Luis López Guerra   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   40913/05 07/11/2005 Maria BĂLĂNUŢĂ N/A Dorohoi   Radu-Daniel AIOANE N/A Dorohoi   Petru-Paulica GRADINARIU N/A Sendriceni   Adrian CRACIUN N/A Dorohoi   Vasile HUTANU N/A Broscauti   Doina CIOBANU   40915/05 07/11/2005 Lidia BURLA N/A N/A   Adrian OLARIU N/A Dorohoi   Eugenia CHILARIU N/A Dorohoi   Mihaela BOTEANU N/A Dorohoi   Rodica OTROCOL N/A Dorohoi   Maria ISTRATE N/A Dorohoi   Doina CIOBANU   5969/06 30/01/2006 Delia Liliana MATLINSCHI N/A Dorohoi   Lucia MARINIUC N/A Dorohoi   Ovidiu STREDIE N/A Dorohoi   Neculai MARCU N/A Dorohoi   Vasile HAIVACA N/A Dorohoi   Costica DRANCA N/A Dorohoi   Verginica ISACOVICI N/A Dorohoi   Natalita DERSCARIU N/A Dorohoi   Petru SPINOSU N/A Dorohoi   Elena BUTNARIU N/A Dorohoi   Maricel TOFAN N/A Dorohoi   Carmen BUHAIANU N/A Dorohoi   Viorica BULIGA N/A Dorohoi   Doina CIOBANU   65799/09 04/12/2009 Maria Camelia MECHE 27/11/1968 Targu-Jiu   Amalia Elena CHEPEA