FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24344/02
by Galina BURLEA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Galina Burlea, is an Moldovan national who was born in 1966 and lives in Durlesti. She was represented before the Court by Mr V. Constantinov, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant used to be a shareholder in a company. In November 1998 she sold her shares to a third party.
In April 2001 another shareholder of the corporation brought an action against the applicant and against the buyer of the shares, seeking the annulment of the contract on the ground of an alleged pre-emption right.
On 7 May 2001 the Botanica District Court issued a judgment by which the contract for the sale of the shares was declared null and void. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
On 11 July 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of 7 May 2001. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Court of Appeal.
A panel of the Court of Appeal started to examine the appeal in cassation on 1 November 2001 and decided that an expert opinion was necessary. For that purpose it adjourned the proceedings until 29 November 2001.
On 29 November 2001 a different panel of the Court of Appeal, composed of judges M.P. (president), S.N. and G.S., resumed the examination of the appeal in cassation and dismissed it. The judgment was final.
The applicant alleges that he did not know about the change in the composition of the panel until the day of the hearing. The applicant also alleges not to have known at the time of the hearing of 29 November 2001 that judge M.P. had not had his mandate prolonged.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of her right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law in view of the expiry of judge M.P.’s mandate.
THE LAW
Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;”
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
On 22 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that on 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed a revision request lodged by the Prosecutor General, quashed its judgment of 29 November 2001, found a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law and ordered a rehearing of the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court also awarded the applicant 200 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. The Government requested the Court to declare the case inadmissible.
On 17 September 2007 the applicant also informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings, which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 16 May 2007. Since the Supreme Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and had awarded her compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses, she requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court).
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.
Fatoş AracıJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy