SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BALAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 17947/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 March 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Balan v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Egidijus Kūris, President,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 17947/13) 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 1 March 2013 by a Moldovan national, Mr Petru Balan, born in 1937 and living in Chișinău (“the applicant”) ;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr M. Gurin and later by their Agent Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the quashing of a final court judgment by admitting an appeal lodged outside the legal time-limit.
2. On 8 October 2010 the Rîșcani District Court awarded the applicant 360,018.80 Moldovan lei (equivalent to 21,715 euros) as compensation of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses resulted from losing 70% of his labour capacity in a labour accident. The judgment became final by non‑appeal on 28 October 2010. However, on 30 January 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appellate judgment which had admitted an appeal lodged outside the legal time-limit and had rejected the applicant’s claims in full.
3. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
4. Following the communication of the case, on 9 November 2016 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request of the Government Agent to reopen domestic proceedings and acknowledged the violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the applicant on the account of the irregular quashing of the judgment in his favour after a time-barred appeal had been upheld. The court reheard the case, rejected the time-barred appeal and finally upheld the judgment from 8 October 2010 in the applicant’s favour. The court ordered the Government Agent to settle the claims for just satisfaction.
5. The Government subsequently informed the Court about their unsuccessful attempts to reach a friendly settlement.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
6. The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
7. The general principles concerning the irregular quashing of final court judgments have been summarized in Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) (no. 19960/04, §§ 27-29, 6 December 2005), Melnic v. Moldova (no. 6923/03, §§ 38-44, 14 November 2006) and Istrate v. Moldova (no. 53773/00, §§ 46-61, 13 June 2006).
8. The Supreme Court of Justice acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s rights due to the irregular quashing of the judgment in his favour. The Court sees no reason to disagree with that finding. Nevertheless, after making that finding, the Supreme Court of Justice did not award the applicant any compensation and no subsequent arrangement for a compensation had been reached by the Government. Therefore, the applicant has not been able to obtain any redress in respect of the abusive quashing of the judgment in his favour and his inability to receive the disability compensation from 2013 to 2016.
9. For these reasons, the Court considers that the applicant did not lose his victim status and that the Government have not put forward any argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
10. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the complaints concerning Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 March 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Egidijus Kūris
Deputy Registrar President