THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8738/07
Leonid BLIC
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Leonid Blic, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Ulianovschi, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was the Chief Executive Officer of a State-owned company operating in the field of agriculture. On 28 January 2005 the applicant was dismissed by an order of the Ministry of Agriculture.
The applicant challenged the order of the Ministry and, on 13 May 2006, the Chişinău Court of Appeal ordered his reinstatement and the payment of damages to him.
The applicant made several attempts to have the judgment enforced but was not successful.
On 18 July 2006 he received a letter from the Supreme Court of Justice informing him that a hearing of the Ministry’s appeal would be held on 6 September 2006 at 10 p.m. However, for unknown reasons, the hearing took place on 4 August 2006 without the applicant being informed about it. By a judgment of the same date, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the decision of 13 May 2006 and dismissed his action against the Ministry.
After the communication of the present case to the Government on 30 November 2009, the Agent of the Government initiated revision proceedings before the domestic courts. On 28 April 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed its judgment of 4 August 2006 and re-opened the proceedings. In so doing, the Supreme Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the fact that the hearing of 4 August 2006 had taken place in the applicant’s absence without him being informed about it. In connection with that breach the Supreme Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.
The re-opened proceedings ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20 March 2013 by which the applicant’s action was granted and he was awarded compensation of some EUR 24,900 for pecuniary damage, EUR 280 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 280 for costs and expenses.
COMPLAINTS
In his initial application the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the judgment of 13 May 2006 was not enforced within a reasonable time and that it was set aside by the Supreme Court of Justice following a hearing (of 4 August 2006) to which he had not been invited. After the end of the re-opened proceedings, in March 2013, the applicant claimed that these proceedings were also unfair because the courts did not award him the entire compensation sought and failed to give sufficient reasons for doing so. The applicant also claimed that the courts’ failure to award him the entire compensation claimed amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
A. The complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the failure to summon the applicant for the hearing of the Supreme Court of Justice of 4 August 2006
The applicant complained that the failure of the Supreme Court of Justice to summon him for its hearing of 4 August 2004 had constituted a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The Court reiterates that for an applicant to be able to claim to be the victim of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, not only must he have the status of victim at the time the application is introduced, but such status must continue to exist at all stages of the proceedings. A decision or measure favorable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑III, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999‑VI).
The Court notes that after the communication of the case to the Government, the proceedings were re-opened, the Supreme Court acknowledged a breach of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the above complaint and compensated the applicant. Moreover, the Court considers that the amount awarded to the applicant is sufficient to cover the breach found. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of Article 6 in relation to the above complaint and that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Remaining complaints
In so far as the applicant’s remaining complaints are concerned, the Court considers them to be unsubstantiated and notes that there is nothing in the file to suggest that the provisions invoked by the applicant have been violated. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy