FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 148/05
by Anatolie BOGDAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2004,
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 Anatolie Bogdan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău and who was not represented before the Court. The Moldovan 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 has been a police officer since 1985. According to the Law on Police Forces, the Municipality was obliged to provide his family with accommodation. Since the Municipality refused to do so, he instituted in 2000 a civil action, seeking a court order obliging the Municipality to provide him with an apartment of a size corresponding to the number of family members, as provided by the legislation on social accommodation.
By a judgment of 17 February 2000, the Centru District Court upheld the applicant’s action. The judgment became final on 3 May 2000 when the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the Municipality.
After that date, the applicant requested on numerous occasions the authorities responsible for the enforcement of judgments to enforce the judgment in his favour, but to no avail. The judgment has not been enforced to date.
According to the parties’ submissions an apartment building in which the applicant’s apartment will be located is currently under construction by the Chişinău Municipality.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the failure to enforce the final judgment of 17 February 2000.
THE LAW
On 25 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that on 24 May 2007 the parties had signed a friendly-settlement agreement. They submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement according to which the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 February 2000. They had undertaken to enforce as soon as possible and to pay the applicant, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, 2,600 euros (EUR) in respect of all damages and costs incurred in connection with the present application. In return, the applicant would withdraw his application and abandon any further claims against the Government in connection with the present case. The Government requested the Court to strike out the present application.
On 2 and 30 June 2007 the applicant also informed the Court that the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement along the above-mentioned lines and requested 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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy