BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF RACU v. MOLDOVA
(Application
no. 13136/07)
JUDGMENT
(just
satisfaction-striking out)
STRASBOURG
20
April 2010
This
judgement will become final in the circumstances set out in Article
44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject of the editorial
revision.
In the case of Racu v. Moldova,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting 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
deliberated in private on 23 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 13136/07) against the Republic
of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Simion Racu (“the
applicant”), on 3 January 2007. The application was dealt
simultaneously with applications nos. 476/07, 22539/05 and 17911/08
and formed part of the overall case of Olaru
and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07,
22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009).
- The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Bizgu, a lawyer practising in
Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a
final judgment in his favour.
- In
a judgment delivered on 28 July 2009 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of
the applicant's rights provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention as a result of the non-enforcement of a final judgment
(see Olaru and Others v. Moldova,
cited above).
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the
Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their
written observations on that issue.
- The
applicant and the Government did not reach a friendly settlement.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant, Mr Simion Racu, is a Moldovan national who was born in
1951 and lives in Chişinău.
- The
applicant is an internally displaced person. After the 1992 war he
fled Transdniestria and settled in Chişinău.
- On
21 October 1993 the Government of the Republic of Moldova adopted
Decision no. 658 “on housing for persons forced to quit their
houses in the eastern region of Moldova”.
- On
an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the
Government and the Chişinău local authorities seeking
housing.
- By
a final judgment of 7 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ordered
the Government and the Chişinău Municipal Council to
provide the applicant with an apartment.
- The
judgment of 7 June 2006 was enforced on 20 March 2008.
- On
28 July 2009 the Court examined the merits of the present case within
the framework of Olaru and Others v. Moldova
(cited above) and found a violation of Article 6 and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
- On
1 February 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed
to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue
of just satisfaction. The Government undertook to pay the applicant
the global sum of 1,800 Euros (EUR) to cover any damage as well as
costs and expenses. This sum would be payable within three months
from the date of notification of the judgment taken by the Court
pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human
Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said
three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest
on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate
equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period, plus three percentage points. They further
requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with
Article 37 of the Convention.
- By
letter of 19 February 2010 the applicant's representative expressed
the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was
unacceptably low.
He requested the Court to reject the Government's proposal
on that basis and claimed that the non-pecuniary damage should be
assessed at EUR 100,000 and the costs and expenses at EUR 2,000.
The applicant did not make any claims in respect of pecuniary damage.
- The
Court notes that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at
any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of
its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the
conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that
Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the
Court to strike a case out of its list in particular if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it
is no longer justified to continue the examination of the
application”.
Article 37
§ 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination
of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
- The
Court also notes that under certain circumstances, it may strike out
an application, or part thereof, under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the
Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent
Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case
to be continued. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent a respondent
State from filing a unilateral declaration relating, as in the
instant case, to the reserved Article 41 procedure. To this end, the
Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the
principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin
Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC],
no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Melnic
v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 22-25, 14
November 2006).
- Having
regard to the amount of compensation proposed, which is consistent
with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Ungureanu
v. Moldova, no. 27568/02, § 39, 6 September
2007), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue
the examination of the remainder of the case (Article 37 § 1
(c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited
above, and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99,
1 March 2005).
- In
the light of all the above considerations, the Court is satisfied
that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the
Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of
the remainder of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly
it should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Takes note of the terms of the respondent
Government's declaration and of the modalities for ensuring
compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
- Decides to strike the remainder of the case (no.
13136/07) out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 April 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
