THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36087/07
by CARNEX S.R.L.
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 4 April 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant company’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant company, Carnex S.R.L., is registered in Moldova. It was represented by Mrs Tatiana Puiu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
On 27 July 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against another company and several local authorities, seeking a court order annulling the sale of a plot of land.
On 17 October 2006 the Bălţi Court of Appeal partly upheld the applicant company’s claims.
By a final judgment of 14 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision of the Bălţi Court of Appeal.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the civil proceedings in question. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it also complained that the excessive length of the proceedings in question had affected its right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
On 2 September 2010 the Court decided to communicate to the respondent Government the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention. It decided also to raise of its own motion the question of lack of effective remedies under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about excessive length of the proceedings. It relied on Article 6 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
By letter dated 4 April 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application.
The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of the proceedings. They offered to pay 1,000 euros in compensation, requesting the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
In a letter of 31 May 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. It also asked the Court not to examine its complaint made under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court will not examine this complaint.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03.
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Cravcenco v. Moldova, no. 13012/02, 15 January 2008; Boboc v. Moldova, no. 27581/04, 4 November 2008; Deservire SRL v. Moldova, no. 17328/04, 6 October 2009; and Oculist and Imaş v. Moldova, no. 44964/05, 28 June 2011).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy