FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10154/05
by Mihail ARDELEAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mihail Ardelean, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1931 and lives in Edineţ. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Martin, a lawyer practising in Edineţ. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a victim of the Soviet repression of 1949. He and his family were deported to Siberia and their property was confiscated by the State.
After his rehabilitation, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State claiming compensation for the pecuniary damage caused by the political repression.
On 6 March 2003 the Bălţi Regional Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the local authorities of the Edineţ County to pay him 132,473 Moldovan lei (MDL).
The judgment of 6 March 2003 was enforced after the communication of the present case to the respondent Government.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the late enforcement of the judgment in his favour.
THE LAW
On 19 December 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government and the applicant:
“1. The Government undertake to pay the applicant, with a view to settling the case, a sum of 8,279 Euros (EUR) to cover pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage, within three months from the date on which the Court will pronounce a decision in the [present case].
2. The payment of the above amounts will constitute a full and final settlement of the case.
3. The applicant shall declare his claims satisfied and shall withdraw his application [...] from the Court.
4. The applicant declares that he will not have any further pecuniary, non-pecuniary, or other claims against the Government in connection with the present case.
5. The parties shall inform the Court about the present agreement and request that the case be struck out of the list of cases.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy