4.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1966 and 1969 respectively and live in Braşov. 5.  On 17 March 2000 the applicants lent 4,000 United States dollars to E.I. and G.I., at a 6,000,000 old Romanian lei (ROL) monthly interest. The deadline for returning the loan was 30 August 2000. Following refusal of payment by the third parties, the applicants brought court proceedings. 6.  On 6 February 2001 the Baia de Aramă District Court (“the District Court”), by a final decision, ordered E.I. and G.I. to return the loan, calculated at the date of payment, and to pay the applicants ROL 42,000,000 representing interest until 17 December 2000, as well as interest until effective repayment. It also ordered G.I. to pay the applicants ROL 8,150,000 for the costs of proceedings. 7.  On 29 May 2001 the applicants requested the bailiff I.M. to enforce the judgment. On the same day the District Court upheld the enforcement. 8.  On 5 June 2001 the bailiff ordered E.I. to pay his part of the debt. 9.  On 13 June 2001 the bailiff certified in an official record that G.I. had no movable or immovable assets to be seized. At an unknown date in the summer of 2001, G.I. left the country. 10.  On 8 August 2001 the bailiff seized a bus belonging to E.I. He then scheduled the sale for 13 March 2002. However, in the absence of any potential buyer, the bailiff adjourned the sale for 20 March 2002. 11.  On 26 November 2001 the applicants requested the bailiff to seize an apartment belonging to E.I. On 29 January 2002 the bailiff seized that apartment. 12.  On 8 February 2002 the applicants requested replacement of the bailiff, alleging failure to enforce the judgment. However, on 11 February 2002 the District Court refused replacement. The applicants filed further complaints against the bailiff before the Bailiffs' Chamber, but received no answer. 13.  The bailiff scheduled the sale of the apartment for 13 May 2002. However, in the absence of any potential buyer, the bailiff decided to postpone it until a new request by the applicants. On 23 July 2002 the applicants requested the bailiff to put the apartment on sale. 14.  On 11 June 2002 the District Court dismissed an objection to execution by E.I. 15.  On 10 September 2002 the bailiff requested an expert to evaluate the apartment. The expert report was finalized on 29 November 2002. 16.  The sale of the apartment was scheduled for 6 January and then for 7 February 2003, when the applicants bought it. On 18 February 2003 the bailiff certified in an official record that the applicants became the new owners and that they had paid an amount of ROL 100,000,000 for that apartment, which was to be deducted out of the total debt. However, due to a mortgage held by a bank as a security for a loan of money, the apartment was later sold (see paragraph 29 below). 17.  On 10 March 2003 the bailiff also put the bus on sale. On 26 March 2003 he received ROL 30,000,000 as the price of the bus, but collected that amount for his personal use. 18.  On 12 June 2003 the applicants lodged an objection to execution against the bailiff, seeking from the court to order the bailiff to allocate them ROL 35,000,000, approximately 920 euros (EUR) at that time, representing the price of the bus. On 10 July 2003 the District Court declared their request null and void for non-payment of the stamp duty. The stamp duty amounted to ROL 174,000, approximately EUR 5 at that time. In the absence of any appeal, that judgment became final. 19.  Following several complaints lodged by the applicants, but also by other persons, on 16 July 2003 the Commission for Discipline of the Bailiffs' Chamber suspended the bailiff from office. 20.  On 9 March 2006 the District Court convicted the bailiff of embezzlement and ordered him to pay the applicants ROL 30,000,000 representing the debt paid by E.I. and also ROL 30,000,000 for loss of profit or benefit. That judgment became final. 21.  In August 2003 the execution file was transferred to the bailiff C.D. According to the bailiff, but contested by the applicants, the latter did not submit any request for enforcement. 22.  On 10 February 2004 the Bailiffs' Chamber transferred the execution file to the bailiff C.C. On 25 February 2004 the bailiff invited the applicants to inform him whether they wanted to continue with the enforcement and whether they had received any money from the debtors. 23.  On 1 April 2004 the applicants expressed their intention to continue with the execution and declared that they had not received any money. They also submitted a copy of the official record of 18 February 2003 in respect of the apartment bought at public auction from E.I. 24.  On 21 April 2004 the applicants requested the bailiff to evict E.I. from that apartment. On 19 May 2004 the bailiff informed them that he had enjoined the debtors to pay the debt. The bailiff also acknowledged that the applicants had not recovered any money, nor were they in the possession of E.I.'s apartment, which had been put on sale by public auction again. 25.  On 20 July 2004 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the bailiff. On 2 November 2004 the public prosecutor found no reasons to start criminal proceedings. The applicants did not contest that decision. 26.  On 23 September 2004 the bailiff requested information from the Isverna town council in respect of G.I.'s movable and immovable property. The town council did not answer. 27.  On 4 October 2004 the Bailiffs' Chamber informed the applicants that they should have registered in the Land Registry their right of property over the apartment bought on sale by public auction and if they wanted to benefit from that apartment they should pay the mortgage. 28.  On 6 October 2004 the bailiff requested information from the Baia de Aramă town council in respect of E.I.'s movable and immovable property. On 26 November 2004 the town council informed the bailiff about E.I.'s assets, which included the above-mentioned apartment and a vehicle. 29.  On 16 December 2004 the bailiff invited the applicants to his office in order to allocate them their share of E.I.'s apartment sold on public auction on 14 October 2004. Following refusal by the applicants, on 4 January 2005 the bailiff reiterated the invitation. On 26 January 2005 the applicants received ROL 24,488,982. 30.  On 3 January 2005 the first applicant lodged an objection to execution against the debtors, against the bailiffs who had been in charge with the execution and against the Bailiffs' Chamber, seeking enforcement of the judgment of 6 February 2001 and appointment of another bailiff to continue with the execution. The court requested the applicant to pay a stamp duty in the amount of ROL 1,740,000, approximately EUR 45 at that time. The applicant invoked Article 6 of the Convention, claimed that the amount of the stamp duty was contrary to the law and requested recalculation. On 20 January 2005 the District Court declared his action null and void for non-payment of the stamp duty.
The first applicant appealed, alleging that the first-instance court had not taken account of his demand regarding the stamp duty and had violated Article 6 of the Convention. On 4 May 2005 the Mehedinţi County Court, by a final decision, dismissed his appeal, considering that the law regarding the stamp duty had been correctly applied. 31.  On 19 May 2005 the bailiff informed the applicants that he was searching to locate further assets belonging to the debtors. 32.  On 6 June 2005 the first applicant requested from the bailiff a copy of the execution file. Following refusal by the bailiff, on 17 January 2006 the applicant sought from the court an order to compel the bailiff to send him that copy. On 21 February 2006 the Braşov County Court upheld his request. 33.  On 26 April 2006 the bailiff requested information from the Baia de Aramă town council in respect of E.I.'s properties. On 8 May 2006 the town council replied that E.I.'s assets included a plot of 640 sq. m of land with two constructions on it and a vehicle. 34.  On 13 July 2006 the applicants reiterated the request to the bailiff to continue with the execution. 35.  On 9 August 2006 the bailiff requested again information from the Isverna town council in respect of G.I.'s movable and immovable property. On 30 August 2006 the town council informed the bailiff that G.I. had no assets and that he had left the country five years ago. On 12 March 2007 the bailiff reiterated his request. 36.  On 31 August 2006, following an assessment of execution proceedings, the bailiff certified in an official record that the debtor E.I. had paid an amount of 5,448.9 new Romanian lei (RON) out of the total of RON 56,837. Therefore the bailiff ordered the two debtors to pay the debt. 37.  On 28 September 2006 the bailiff visited E.I.'s property and on 29 September 2006 he served notice to E.I. to pay the debt, informing him that in case of refusal his immovable assets were to be put on sale. 38.  On 29 January 2007 the bailiff informed the applicants about the debtors' situation and invited them to pay the tax for an expert report in order to evaluate E.I.'s immovable property and then to put it on sale by public auction. In the absence of any answer by the applicants, on 23 March 2007 the bailiff reiterated the request for payment of that tax, but to no avail.
According to the file, that was the last action taken by the bailiff with a view to enforce the judgment in the applicants' favour.