SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29735/17
Fanuza CHIREEVA
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 October 2024 as a Committee composed of:
Davor Derenčinović, President,
Diana Sârcu,
Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2017,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mrs Fanuza Chireeva, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău. She was represented before the Court by Mr L. Osoian, a lawyer practicing in Chişinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
On 21 May 2007 the Buiucani District Court partially granted the applicant’s claims and ordered Durlești City Hall and Durlești Council to provide the applicant, within thirty days, with the documents confirming the allocation of a plot of land for the construction of an individual house.
In December 2012 the applicant started proceedings against the Ministry of Justice under Law no. 87, complaining about the non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
On 22 April 2013 the District Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to the enforcement of the final judgment but awarded no compensations. On 5 December 2013, following the applicant’s appeal, the Chișinău Court of Appeal partially quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and granted the applicant 5,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) in non-pecuniary damages and MDL 3,000 in costs and expenses. The applicant did not challenge that decision.
The Ministry of Justice lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal. On 30 April 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed that appeal.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the final judgment in her favour and about the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.
The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies; in particular that she did not file an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 5 December 2013.
The Court notes that the documents in its possession do not contain any indication that the applicant had exhausted the available domestic remedy by filing an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right – usually through the courts – the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Balan v. Moldova, 44746/08, (dec.), 24 January 2012).
Since the applicant failed to raise before the Supreme Court of Justice the issue about which she complains before the Court, her complaints must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 November 2024.
Viktoriya Maradudina Davor Derenčinović
Acting Deputy Registrar President