THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14704/07
by Maria PAERELE
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 October 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Maria Paerele, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. She is represented before the Court by Ms J. Hanganu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
On 27 October 2003 the applicant purchased a plot of land from a V.C. and, after obtaining the necessary permits, started building a house on it. The plot of land in question had been sold to V.C. by the Chişinău Municipality several months earlier.
On an unspecified date a government agency contested the Municipality’s decision to sell the said plot of land to V.C.
On 31 October 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal decided in favour of the government agency and annulled the Municipality’s decision to sell the plot of land to V.C. on the ground that no auction had been organised. The applicant was summoned to take part in the proceedings and only found out about them in January 2007 when she lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice.
On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal without hearing her in person. The judgment became final.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair because she had not had an opportunity to defend herself properly by being present in court and stating her position.
2. The applicant also complained that as a result of the unfair proceedings her rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated.
3. She finally submitted that she had not had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention against the alleged breaches stated above.
THE LAW
By letter dated 11 May 2011 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 22 June 2011. Later, at the applicant’s request, the time-limit was extended until 16 August 2011.
On 10 August 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application because she continued to be the owner of the disputed plot of land and because any action against her at the domestic level was time-barred.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy