FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6914/08
by Tamara CAZACU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Tamara Cazacu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in Chisinau. She was represented before the Court by Ms N. Mardari, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was an employee of the Ministry of Education (“the Ministry”). On 5 April 2004 she was dismissed from her position. The applicant initiated proceedings against the Ministry for wrongful dismissal, seeking reinstatement in her position and pecuniary damage for the period of involuntary absence from work.
By a final judgment delivered on 5 November 2004, the Chişinău Court of Appeal found in favour of the applicant and awarded her 8,190 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 510 euros (EUR) at the time) in pecuniary damage, MDL 5,000 (EUR 312) in non-pecuniary damage and MDL 400 (EUR 25) for costs and expenses.
Despite attempts by the applicant to obtain enforcement, the final judgment in her favour has not been enforced to date.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgments in her favour.
2. The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgments in her favour had violated her right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 24 April 2009 the Court received from the Government a friendly-settlement agreement reached with the applicant’s representative. According to that agreement:
“1. The Government of Moldova undertake to pay Ms Tamara Cazacu the sum of 3,000 (three thousand) euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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.
2. The arrangement mentioned above shall constitute the final settlement of the case.
3. The applicant shall declare all her claims satisfied and shall withdraw application no.6914/08 Cazacu v. Moldova, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and notified to the Government on 9 October 2008.
4. The applicant declares that she waives any further claims against the Government of Moldova in respect of facts giving rise to this application, including any claims of non-pecuniary or pecuniary nature, or any other damage which could result from the circumstances of the present case.
5. The parties shall inform the European Court of the existence of the present agreement and shall request the case to be struck out from the list of cases.”
The friendly-settlement agreement was signed by the applicant’s representative and the Government and dated 23 April 2009.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy