FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13433/06
by Ştefan BURUIAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ştefan Buruian, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1948 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Băieşu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant initiated court proceedings against the Privatisation Department and the Ministry of Finance in order to obtain pecuniary damages due to the delay in the enforcement of a final court order.
On 6 May 2004, the Centru District Court ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay the applicant compensation for pecuniary damage amounting to 37,868 Moldovan lei (2,573 euros at the time).
The Ministry of Finance lodged an appeal against this judgment.
On 21 September 2004, the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and ordered the above-mentioned sum to be paid by the Privatisation Department.
No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable on 7 October 2004.
On 5 November 2004 the Centru District Court issued an enforcement warrant.
Despite several attempts of the applicant to obtain its enforcement, the final judgment of 21 September 2004 has not been enforced to date.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment in his favour.
2. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention claiming he had not had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 6 § 1.
3. The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment had violated his right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 23 January 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova offer to pay the sum of 6,653 (six thousand six hundred and fifty-three) euros to Mr Ştefan BURUIAN with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court also received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Sergiu Băieşu, the applicant’s representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova are prepared to pay 6,653 (six thousand six hundred and fifty-three) euros to Mr Ştefan Buruian with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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 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