FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28209/03
by Iulia CUMATRENCO and Others
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the letter from the applicant dated 26 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasile Cumatrenco, was a Moldovan national who was born in 1949 and lived in Chişinău. The applicant’s representative informed the Court on 31 March 2004 that the applicant had died; she stated that his heirs wanted the proceedings to continue and submitted powers of attorney. For reasons of convenience Mr Cumatrenco will continue to be referred to in this decision as the applicant, although it is now his widow and children who are to be regarded as having this status (see, among other authorities, Vocaturo v. Italy, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206‑C, § 2).
The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms Natalia Mardari, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a judge and the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova. In 1997 the Parliament accepted his resignation due to health problems and on an unspecified date he applied to the Ministry of Finance for an indemnity of 245,855 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 18,862 euros (EUR) at the time), as provided by the Law “On the Status of Judges”. Since the Ministry refused to comply with his request, the applicant brought an action against the former seeking the payment of the indemnity.
On 26 December 2001 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the entire amount claimed. The Ministry appealed.
On 8 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of 26 December 2001 and ordered the case to be re-tried by the first-instance court.
On 18 June 2002 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 245,855. The Ministry did not appeal and after fifteen days the judgment became final and enforceable.
Following a request of the Ministry of Finance, on 6 September 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment of the final judgment of 18 June 2002.
During the proceedings before the Supreme Court the applicant challenged the composition of the panel of judges which had to examine his case on the ground that all three judges had been directly subordinate to him and could have had a certain animosity towards him, as their former superior. His request was rejected as unsubstantiated.
On 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the judgment of the Rîşcani District Court of 18 June 2002. The applicant alleged that he had not been present during the proceedings.
On 4 March 2004 the applicant died (see above).
Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General to lodge a request with the Supreme Court of Justice to quash its judgment of 16 October 2002 and to discontinue the request for annulment proceedings. He considered that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant following the annulment proceedings had breached the applicant’s rights under the Convention.
On 18 April 2005 the Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent’s request. He lodged a revision request relying on section 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure. By a judgment of 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for revision, quashed its judgment of 16 October 2002 and discontinued the annulment proceedings.
On 15 February 2007 the applicant filed a request with the Supreme Court of Justice seeking the issuance of an additional judgment to that of 8 June 2005. In particular, he sought the payment of compensation for the alleged breach of his rights under the Convention.
On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld his request and found that there had been a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the quashing of the final judgment of the Rîşcani District Court of 18 June 2002. The Supreme Court also awarded him MDL 124,566.65 (EUR 7,459.08 at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the impossibility to use his money, EUR 4,850 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 950 for costs and expenses, including the applicant’s representative’s fees incurred before the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment of 18 June 2002 as a result of the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 that the annulment proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice on 16 October 2002 had been unfair in that his challenge to the impartiality of the panel of judges had been dismissed. Finally, the applicant submitted that he had not been present during the proceedings before the Supreme Court on 16 October 2002.
THE LAW
Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved...”
Rule 43 § 1 of the Rules of Court, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
On 26 February 2007 the Government informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings, which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 21 February 2007. The Government considered that since the applicant had been awarded adequate redress, he could no longer claim to be a “victim”. They requested the Court to reject his complaints as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
On 26 February 2007 the applicant also informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings, which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 21 February 2007. Since the Supreme Court had awarded him adequate redress for the violation of the Convention, he requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention and to the fact that the applicant has been awarded adequate redress by the domestic courts, the Court notes that he does not intend to pursue his application. 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 examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the Court’s list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy