THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17988/09
Ana SISCANU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Ana Siscanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ulmu.
A. The circumstances of the case
1. Domestic judgment in favour of the applicant and its enforcement
2. The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant initiated proceedings against a third party seeking her eviction from a house. On 30 June 2008 the Nisporeni District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the eviction of the defendant. In spite of the applicant’s efforts to have the judgment enforced, it has not been enforced to date.
2. The Olaru and others pilot judgment and its consequences for similar cases
4. On 28 July 2009 the Court delivered the Olaru and others pilot judgment (see Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009) in which it found, inter alia, that the problem of non-enforcement of domestic judgments awarding social housing to different categories of individuals disclosed the existence of a “systemic problem”. The Court ordered, inter alia, that the respondent State set up an effective domestic remedy which secures adequate and sufficient redress for non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Olaru and others, cited above, § 58 and point 4 of the operative part).
3. The creation of a new domestic remedy and subsequent developments
5. On 20 September 2011 the Moldovan Government informed the Court that on 1 July 2011 a new law (Law no. 87) entered into force, instituting a remedy against the problem of non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and against the problem of unreasonable length of proceedings.
6. On 29 September 2011 the Registry of the Court informed the applicant and all other applicants in the same position of the new remedy, asking whether they intended to make use of it within the six-month time‑limit set by Law No. 87 (see paragraph 9 below). The applicants’ attention was drawn to the fact that according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that failure to observe the above rule could constitute a reason for declaring the application inadmissible.
7. The Court has not received any reply from the applicant to its letter of 29 September 2011.
B. Relevant domestic law
8. According to Law no. 87 anyone who considers him or herself to be a victim of a breach of the right to have a case examined or a final judgment enforced within a reasonable time is entitled to apply to a court for the acknowledgement of such a breach and compensation. According to section 1 of the law, it should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the national law, the Convention and the Court’s case-law. According to section 4 of the law the courts are obliged to deal with applications lodged under the law within three months. Section 5 of the law states that if a breach of the right to have a case examined or a final judgment enforced within a reasonable time is found by a court, compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses have to be awarded to the applicant. Section 6 of the law simplifies the procedure of enforcement of judgments adopted under the law so as no further applications or formalities should be required from the part of the applicants. Under section 7 of the law all individuals who have complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in domestic courts within six months of the entry into force of the new law, provided that the European Court has not ruled on the admissibility and merits of the complaint.
9. At the same time the Code of Civil Procedure was modified in such a manner as to reduce the number of instances of appeal from two to one and to waive court fees for such proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
10. Referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that the State had failed to ensure the enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgments in her favour.
THE LAW
11. The Court recalls that in Balan v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012) it has held that the new remedy introduced by Law no. 87 was designed to address the issue of delayed enforcement of judgments and that it was not ineffective. It was also held that in spite of the fact that the new remedy only became available after the introduction of that application, the applicant was obliged to use it and that using it did not constitute and excessive burden for the applicant and for other applicants in a similar position.
12. The Court notes that the present applicant did not reply to its letter dated 29 September 2011 and, in view of the content of that letter, considers that this 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 application out of the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy