FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24330/02
by Piotr DARCIUC
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 November 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 24 May 2002,
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 formal parties’ declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Darciuc, is an Moldovan national who was born in 1940 and lives in Ialoveni. He was represented before the Court by Mr Victor Constantinov, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. 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 the director of a company (“the company”), incorporated in Moldova. On an unspecified date in 2000, the applicant, on behalf of the company, initiated court proceedings against a third party, seeking compensation for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the latter’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations.
On 5 October 2000 the Chişinău Economic Court upheld the action and ordered the third party to pay the company 17,348 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 1,621.79 euros (EUR) at the time). The third party appealed.
On 28 June 2001 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal against the judgment of 5 October 2000. This judgment was not appealed against and became final and enforceable.
On an unspecified date in September 2001 the Prosecutor General filed a request for annulment of the judgments of 5 October 2000 and 28 June 2001.
On 12 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice partially upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the above-mentioned judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it reduced the amount of compensation to MDL 10,900 (EUR 934.35 at the time).
Following the communication of the case by the Court and a subsequent request of the Prosecutor General, on 25 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed its judgment of 12 December 2001 and discontinued the annulment proceedings. It also found that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the quashing of the final judgment of 28 June 2001.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing by the Supreme Court of the final judgment of 28 June 2001 as a result of the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment.
THE LAW
On 25 October 2007 the Government informed the Court that on the same date the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement. They submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement according to which the Government had undertaken to pay the applicant, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, EUR 770 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 900 for costs and expenses. The Government requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
On 5 November 2007 the applicant also informed the Court that the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement along the above-mentioned lines and that he wished to discontinue the examination of the application.
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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the 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