FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF RACU v. MOLDOVA
(Application no. 13136/07)
JUDGMENT
(just satisfaction-striking out)
STRASBOURG
20 April 2010
FINAL
20/07/2010
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Racu v. Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 13136/07) 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 Moldovan national, Simion Racu (“the applicant”), on 3 January 2007. The application was dealt simultaneously with applications nos. 476/07, 22539/05 and 17911/08 and formed part of the overall case of Olaru and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009).
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Bizgu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour.
4. In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2009 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there had been a violation of the applicant's rights provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the non-enforcement of a final judgment (see Olaru and Others v. Moldova, cited above).
5. 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.
6. The applicant and the Government did not reach a friendly settlement.
THE FACTS
7. The applicant, Mr Simion Racu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău.
8. The applicant is an internally displaced person. After the 1992 war he fled Transdniestria and settled in Chişinău.
9. On 21 October 1993 the Government of the Republic of Moldova adopted Decision no. 658 “on housing for persons forced to quit their houses in the eastern region of Moldova”.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the Government and the Chişinău local authorities seeking housing.
11. By a final judgment of 7 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the Government and the Chişinău Municipal Council to provide the applicant with an apartment.
12. The judgment of 7 June 2006 was enforced on 20 March 2008.
13. On 28 July 2009 the Court examined the merits of the present case within the framework of Olaru and Others v. Moldova (cited above) and found a violation of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
14. On 1 February 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue of just satisfaction. The Government undertook to pay the applicant the global sum of 1,800 Euros (EUR) to cover any damage as well as costs and expenses. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the judgment taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
15. By letter of 19 February 2010 the applicant's representative expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government's declaration was unacceptably low. He requested the Court to reject the Government's proposal on that basis and claimed that the non-pecuniary damage should be assessed at EUR 100,000 and the costs and expenses at EUR 2,000. The applicant did not make any claims in respect of pecuniary damage.
16. The Court notes 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 to strike a case out of its list in particular if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
17. The Court also notes that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application, or part thereof, under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent a respondent State from filing a unilateral declaration relating, as in the instant case, to the reserved Article 41 procedure. To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 22-25, 14 November 2006).
18. Having regard to the amount of compensation proposed, which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Ungureanu v. Moldova, no. 27568/02, § 39, 6 September 2007), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the remainder of the case (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005).
19. In the light of all the above considerations, 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 remainder of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
2. Decides to strike the remainder of the case (no. 13136/07) out of its list of cases.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy