THIRD SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 39503/06
by Valentina CONOVALI
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 September 2006,
Having regard to the decision to communicate this application following the adoption of the pilot judgment in the case of Olaru and others (Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Valentina Conovali, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1945 and lives in Chişinău. She is represented before the Court by Ms E. Botnari, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
On 2 November 2004 the Centru District Court ordered the Chişinău local council to provide the applicant with accommodation. This judgment became final on 18 November 2004.
On 11 October 2005 the final judgment in favour of the applicant was fully enforced.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to a court had been violated by a failure to enforce the final judgment in her favour.
2. The applicant also complained, under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, that by failing to enforce the final judgment in her favour the Moldovan authorities had infringed her right to private life and that she had also been a victim of discriminatory treatment.
3. The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment had violated her right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
Relying on various provisions of the Convention, the applicant complained of the failure to enforce the final judgment of the Centru District Court.
In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Government submitted documents confirming that the final judgment in favour of the applicant had been fully enforced on 11 October 2005.
Therefore, they argued that since the applicant had lodged her application with the Court on 10 September 2006, namely eleven months after the final judgment in her favour had been enforced, her application should be declared out of time.
The applicant’s representative failed to submit any comments in respect of this matter.
The Court accepts the Government’s argument that the applicant has failed to comply with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, Şumila and others v. Moldova, nos. 41556/05, 42308/05, 33566/06, 33567/06, 33568/06 and 33570/06, 26 January 2010). It follows that the application must be rejected as being out of time, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Marialena TsirliJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy