[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Elena GLAVCEV v Moldova - 24246/05 [2009] ECHR 285 (27 January 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/285.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 285

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

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 24246/05
by Elena GLAVCEV
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2005,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Elena Glavcev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and lives in Comrat. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.

The applicant is a school teacher and is formally employed by a local subdivision of the Ministry of Education. Following a car accident during work, she became partly disabled. Since her employer refused to pay her compensation in accordance with the labour legislation, she instituted civil proceedings against it.

By a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 9 February 2005 the applicant’s action was upheld and her employer was obliged to pay her 32,199 Moldovan lei (MDL) (2,301 euros (EUR) at the time).

The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant and formally requested that the judgment be enforced. The judgment was enforced on 21 July 2005.

The applicant did not inform the Court about the enforcement of the judgment in her favour and it was only through the Government’s observations that the Court learned about the enforcement of the judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 February 2005.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 February 2005. She invoked Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. The relevant Articles provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:

Article 6 § 1:

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

Article 1 of Protocol 1:

 “1.  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...”

In their observations, the Government submitted a copy of a payment order in favour of the applicant for the amount indicated in the judgment of 9 February 2005. They argued that since the judgment had been enforced, the applicant could not claim to be a victim.

The applicant argued that the enforcement was not carried out within a reasonable time.

The Court notes that the judgment in favour of the applicant became enforceable on 9 February 2005 and was enforced on 21 July 2005, that is less than six months later. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 37, 23 October 2003) and to the fact that the defendant fully complied with the judgment within a relatively short period, the Court finds that it was enforced within a “reasonable time”. Therefore, the Court finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, Osoian v. Moldova (dec.), no. 31413/03, 28 February 2006).

Accordingly, the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President