THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DRAGOSTEA COPIILOR - PETROVSCHI - NAGORNII v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 25575/08)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
10 June 2014
FINAL
10/09/2014
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dragostea Copiilor - Petrovschi - Nagornii v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Dragoljub Popović,
Luis López Guerra,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 25575/08) 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”) by a company registered in Moldova, Dragostea Copiilor - Petrovschi - Nagornii (“the applicant company”), on 13 May 2008.
2. In a judgment delivered on 13 September 2011 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the principle of legal certainty had been breached under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the upholding, by the Supreme Court of Justice on 14 November 2007, of a request for review of the final judgment of 18 July 2007 (Dragostea Copiilor - Petrovschi - Nagornii v. Moldova, no. 25575/08, 13 September 2011).
3. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach.
4. The applicant company and the Government failed to reach an agreement and filed observations.
THE LAW
5. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
6. The applicant company submitted that it had been running a private school since 1995. It appears that from its establishment until its closure in 2009, the school had never been profitable. According to the information submitted by the applicant company for the years 2000 to 2011, the school incurred losses every year except for 2000, 2001 and 2003, when it neither earned nor lost any money. However, the losses increased towards the end of the period, when the applicant company started to experience problems with Mr M.
7. The applicant company submitted that there was a causal link between the attempts by Mr M. to enforce the judgment of 25 July 2001 against it and the increase of the losses suffered by the school. The attempts to enforce the judgment of 2001 started in 2006. Had the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed on 14 November 2007 the review request lodged by Mr M., no losses would have been incurred between 2008 and 2011 (see paragraph 12 of the principal judgment). Moreover, had that happened, the applicant company would have been entitled to claim in the domestic courts compensation for the losses suffered as a result of Mr M.’s actions between 2006 and 14 November 2007. According to the applicant company, between 2006 and 2011 its losses amounted to 22,164 euros (EUR). The applicant company admitted that the entire amount was not imputable to the impugned review, and therefore claimed only 75% of that sum, that is EUR 16,600.
8. The applicant company also claimed EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It argued that as a result of the violations found in the present case the school had had to close down and its management had incurred serious damage.
9. The Government considered the applicant company’s claims for pecuniary damage speculative and ill-founded. As to the non-pecuniary damage, the Government considered the claim excessive.
10. The Court agrees with the Government that the applicant company’s claims for pecuniary damage are speculative. Indeed, it appears from the applicant’s submissions that the school run by the applicant company was never profitable throughout its existence and, moreover, that it had losses even before 2006. Therefore, the Court does not consider it possible to make any award in respect of pecuniary damage. In so far as the non-pecuniary damage is concerned, taking into account the circumstances of the case and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant company EUR 2,000.
B. Costs and expenses
11. The applicant company also claimed EUR 4,300 for the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court. It submitted proof that the entire amount had been paid to its representative.
12. The Government contested the claim and argued that it was excessive and unsubstantiated.
13. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the entire amount claimed.
C. Default interest
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Holds,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 4,300 (four thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy