SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16137/15
Victor DANILIUC
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 March 2015,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Victor Daniliuc, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1949 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Păduraru, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the unfairness of civil proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice, were communicated to the Government.
After the communication, the Government initiated revision proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice with a view to remedying the situation complained about by the applicant. By a judgment of 13 November 2019, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Government’s revision request and quashed the judgment which served as a basis for the alleged violation and acknowledged a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Supreme Court also ordered a fresh examination of the case. By its subsequent final judgment of 5 February 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judicial decisions in the applicant’s favour.
THE LAW
Following the unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaints in the present application.
The declaration provided that the Government acknowledged the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They also noted that as a result of the revision procedure initiated by them, the Supreme Court had remedied the situation complained about by the applicant. The Government also offered to pay the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) (one thousand and five hundred euros) to cover pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, would be free of any taxes that may be applicable and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
Therefore, the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
By a letter of 5 February 2020, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the fact that the fresh examination of the applicant’s case initiated at the domestic level after the communication of the case to the Government resulted in the favourable outcome for the applicant, and taking into account the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of 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 complaint (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 15 April 2021.
Viktoriya MaradudinaBranko Lubarda
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy