SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45460/13
Clavdia BEJENAR
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 45460/13) 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”) on 13 June 2013 by a Moldovan national, Ms Clavdia Bejenar, who was born in 1960 and lives in Chișinău (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr L. Osoian, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by represented by their Agent, Mr M. Gurin and later by their Agent ad-interim Ms R. Revencu;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the non-enforcement of a final judgment against a private debtor.
2. In June 2004 the applicant bought an apartment from M., a private individual, and in August 2004 she sold it to another individual. Shortly after this transaction, M.’s former wife sought the annulment of those contracts. M. died in the course of the proceedings without any heirs accepting the inheritance. On 21 September 2007 the Ciocana District Court upheld the claims of M.’s former wife, annulled the sale contracts and ordered the chain restitution of the sale price. As M. was already deceased, the court ordered the restitution in the applicant’s favour from the estate left by M. The judgment became final on 12 May 2009 and has not been enforced to date.
3. The applicant initiated proceedings against the Ministry of Finance in accordance with Law No. 87, claiming compensation for non-enforcement. On 30 October 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal finally rejected her claims, finding that the debtor, M., was deceased, had no heirs and left no estate, and that the State could not be held accountable for his debts.
4. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non‑enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. She claimed that the judgment as such was formulated in a confusing manner which prevented its enforcement.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5. In view of similar complaints on the delay in the enforcement of final judgments, in 2015 the Court decided to join this application with sixty others (see Ialtexgal Aurica S.A. and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), nos. 16000/10 and 60 other applications, § 10, 1 September 2015) and declared the applications partially inadmissible. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other sixty and to examine it separately.
6. The general principles concerning the non-enforcement of final court judgments against a private person have been summarized in Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 71186/01, § 67 and §§ 90-11, 7 June 2005) and in Fociac v. Romania (no. 2577/02, § 70, 3 February 2005).
7. The domestic courts concluded that the failure to enforce the judgment in respect of the applicant was not imputable to the State because the debtor, M., had no heirs and no estate from which his liabilities could be covered. The applicant did not dispute these findings nor claimed that there were assets which could satisfy the enforceable debt if the bailiff were to have undertaken additional action.
8. As the responsibility of the State cannot be engaged on account of non-payment of an enforceable debt as a result of the insolvency of a “private” debtor (Sanglier v. France, no. 50342/99, § 39, 27 May 2003), the Court cannot but conclude that in the present case the measures taken by the authorities to have the judgment of 21 September 2007 executed were adequate and sufficient in the circumstances of the case.
9. Therefore, the Court rejects the application as being manifestly ill‑founded under Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined;
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 December 2021.
Hasan Bakırcı Aleš Pejchal
Deputy Registrar President