FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF AVANTECH CONT S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
(Applications nos. 6969/19 and 3 others – see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
25 September 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Avantech Cont S.R.L. and Others v. Romania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Anne Louise Bormann, President,
 Sebastian Raduletu,
 András Jakab, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 8. In the leading case of Foundation Hostel for Students of the Reformed Church and Stanomirescu v. Romania, nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07, 7 January 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered payment of various amounts of money to the applicants or ordered other specific actions to be taken by various public authorities (see the appended table for details of court orders). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 11. 1. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
12. In application no. 6969/19, the applicant company also complained about the inability to obtain damages for loss of profit due to the impossibility to build on its land. The Court has carefully examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, it should be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation