[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
AVRAMENKO v. MOLDOVA
(Application
no. 29808/02)
JUDGMENT
(just
satisfaction – friendly settlement)
STRASBOURG
26 January
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Avramenko v. Moldova,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Giovanni
Bonello,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 5 January 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 29808/02) 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, Mr Valeriu Avramenko (“the
applicant”), on 11 June 2002.
- In
a judgment delivered on 6 February 2007 (“the principal
judgment”), the Court held there had been a violation of the
applicant company's rights provided by Article 6 § 1 and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Avramenko v. Moldova,
no. 29808/02, 6 February 2007).
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction
in the amount of 41,152 euros (EUR).
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision as regards the applicant's claim for pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the
Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their
written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the
Court of any agreement they might reach.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bălţi.
- The
applicant initiated court proceedings claiming compensation for the
effects of inflation on the award made in his favour. On 29 April
2004 the Bălţi Regional Court partly accepted his claims
and, on the basis of Article 253 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see
below), awarded him 285,503 Moldovan lei (MDL, approximately
EUR 20,272 at the time) in compensation for the pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the failure to enforce the
final judgment.
- On
5 October 2004 the Bălţi Court of Appeal upheld that
judgment. The judgment was final. However, it was not enforced and
was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court of Justice following an
extraordinary request lodged by the Prosecutor General's Office.
THE LAW
- On
11 and 13 November 2009 the Court received from the parties a
document signed by them containing a friendly settlement agreement
signed by them in which the Government undertook:
“...to pay the sum of 37,500 (thirty seven
thousand five hundred) euros to Mr Valeriu Avramenko with a view
to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases
[Avramenko nos. (1) and (2) v. Moldova, applications nos. 29808/02
and 7467/06] pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted
into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and
free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within
three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 undertake to pay simple
interest on it, from 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. The payment
will constitute the final resolution of the cases.”
- The
Court takes formal note of the above agreement. It observes that by
signing the friendly settlement agreement the applicant has withdrawn
all its claims against the respondent State before the Court.
- Having
examined the terms of the agreement reached, the Court considers that
it is equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules
of Court and that it is based on respect for human rights as defined
in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine
of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court) (see
Maurice v. France (just satisfaction - friendly settlement)
[GC], no. 11810/03, §§ 34-35, ECHR 2006 ...).
- Accordingly,
the remainder of the case should be struck out of the Court's list
(Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and Rule 43 § 3).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Takes formal note of the agreement between the
parties and the arrangements made to ensure compliance with the
undertakings given therein (Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
- Decides to strike the remainder of the case out
of its list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
