4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Codlea. 5.  During events on 22 December 1998 the applicant’s father was murdered. By a decision of 15 February 1999 the Bucharest County Court convicted of murder five individuals, namely, F.O.D.K, P.O., H.D., R.A. and K.I., all of whom had dual Hungarian/Romanian citizenship, and ordered the joint payment of damages of 50,000.000 Romanian Lei (ROL) to the applicant and other civil parties. The decision became final on 26 March 2001 by a decision of the Supreme Court. 6.  On 26 July 2001 the applicant started enforcement proceedings through a local bailiff. 7.  In 2002, during the enforcement proceedings, the authorities found that three of the debtors (P.O., F.O.D.K. and K.I.) had left Romania and established their residence in Hungary. 8.  On 28 March 2002 the International Relations Office within the Romanian Ministry of Justice advised the applicant to lodge, pursuant to Article 46 (b) of the Agreement of 1958 between the Popular Republic of Romania and the Popular Republic of Hungary regarding judicial assistance in civil, family and criminal trials (hereinafter “the Treaty”), a request for international judicial assistance with the first‑instance court that had ruled on the matter, to be forwarded through the Ministry of Justice, which would also provide a translation of the request and the accompanying documents. 9.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant made an exequatur request and, pursuant to Article 46 (b) of the Treaty, lodged it with the Bucharest County Court. He also requested an update of the amount of damages and its equivalent in Euros. 10.  On 16 June 2003 the Bucharest County Court provided the update requested. Consequently, the applicant filed another exequatur request. 11.  On 17 November 2003 the Bucharest County Court issued the exequatur requested in relation to the final decision of 2001 with respect to P.O., F.O.D.K. and K.I. and sent it to the Ministry of Justice. However, since authorised translations of all the accompanying documents were not enclosed with the request, in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty, the Ministry of Justice sent it back to the Bucharest County Court requesting it to provide the translations at the plaintiff’s expense. 12.  On 12 February 2004 the Bucharest County Court sent the certified translations into the Hungarian language of the required documents to the Minister of Justice. 13.  On 5 March 2004 the Minister of Justice sent to its Hungarian counterpart the exequatur request relating to the final court decision of 2001. 14.  In reply to requests by the applicant for information with respect to the state of the proceedings, the Ministry of Justice informed him on April 2005 that there had been no official answer from the Hungarian Authorities but that they would pursue their contact with the Hungarian authorities and keep him informed accordingly. 15.  In 2006 and 2007 the applicant renewed his request for information regarding the state of the proceedings. 16.  On 14 February 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that they had requested information from their Hungarian counterpart. 17.  On 12 April 2007 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice informed the Romanian Ministry of Justice that no exequatur request relating to a court decision from Romania had been registered in their data base. 18.  Following a new request from the applicant regarding the state of the proceedings, the Ministry of Justice communicated that information to the applicant by a letter of 1 June 2007. 19.  On 27 June 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that he should lodge a new application. 20.  On 24 July 2007 the applicant again requested an exequatur for the judgment of 2001 from the Bucharest County Court. 21.  On 11 September 2007 the Bucharest County Court issued a new exequatur request based on the Hague Convention of 28 May 1970 on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments, ratified by Romania in 2000, and sent it to the Ministry of Justice. 22.  On 16 October 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the Bucharest County Court that Hungary had not ratified the said Convention. 23.  The applicant renewed his request to the Romanian Ministry of Justice for information. 24.  On 7 November 2007 the Bucharest County Court issued the exequatur request and sent it to the Romanian Ministry of Justice, which on 19 November 2007 sent it back to the County Court as incomplete. The Romanian Ministry of Justice forwarded the completed file to the Hungarian authorities on 10 December 2007. 25.  Throughout the months of February and May 2008 the applicant submitted to the Romanian Ministry of Justice repeated requests for information as to the state of the proceedings. 26.  On 12 June 2008 the Hungarian authorities informed the Romanian party that they had received the request and the accompanying documents; however the documents did not mention the addresses of the debtors in Hungary and for this reason they were not able to establish which authority was competent to deal with the request. 27.  The Romanian Ministry of Justice provided this information on 16 June 2008 and 4 July 2008 respectively. 28.  On 6 August 2008 the applicant requested the Bucharest County Court to attach the decision of 16 June 2003 (stating the updated amount of the debt) to the file in the exequatur proceedings. 29.  On 9 September 2008 the Bucharest County Court asked the applicant to itemise his additional expenses. 30.  On 29 September 2008 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice confirmed that the request for enforcement against F.O.D.K. had been forwarded to the competent court. However, they were not able to examine the enforcement request against K.J. as the file was not complete. 31.  On 29 October 2008 the Romanian Ministry of Justice communicated to the Hungarian party the court decision of 16 June 2003 regarding the updated amount for damages, as well as the note on the additional expenses. 32.  On 14 July 2009 the Hungarian party informed them that the Romanian court decision of 2001 had been declared enforceable against F.O.D.K. and a bailiff had been assigned. 33.  On 31 July 2009 the Romanian Ministry of Justice was informed by its counterpart that with respect to the debtor P.O. the court dealing with the application required additional information from the Bucharest County Court. This information was forwarded by the Romanian Ministry of Justice on 27 January 2010. However, meanwhile, on 28 September 2009 the debtor P.O. died. 34.  On 26 November 2009 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice informed the Romanian party that with respect to J.K. the first‑instance court had declared the decision enforceable on 4 June 2009. The appellate court had set aside the order on enforceability pending submission by the Romanian first‑instance court of a certificate required by Article 54 of European Union Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. It appears that meanwhile the said document had been forwarded by the applicant on 13 November 2009.