FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23346/04
by Veniamin IDRICEANU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2004,
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 declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Veniamin Idriceanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1928 and lives in Merenii Noi. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi from “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a non-governmental organisation based in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The original proceedings
In 1968 the applicant became a member of an apartment building association (“the Association”) and paid instalments to obtain an apartment. In 1970 he married and in 1974 he obtained the apartment. In 1982 he divorced his wife but they continued to live together until 1988, when he became a pensioner and started living for certain periods in another place.
In 1991 a meeting of the Association decided to exclude the applicant from its membership because he had not lived in the apartment for some time and had not paid for services. The Association accepted his former wife in his place (“the 1991 decision”). Thereafter, his former wife purchased the apartment.
In 1997 the applicant found out about his exclusion from the Association and the authorities’ decision to allow the transfer of the title to the apartment and challenged both acts in court.
On 4 November 1999 the Râşcani District Court found in his favour and annulled the 1991 decision. It also recognised the applicant’s right to live in the apartment. The court found that the 1991 decision had not been confirmed by the municipality as was required by law, and thus had no legal validity.
That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Regional Court on 3 May 2000 and by the Court of Appeal on 14 September 2000. The Court of Appeal found that, besides the lack of confirmation of the 1991 decision by the municipality, there was no legal basis for the applicant’s exclusion since Article 63 of the Housing Code (see below) did not apply to members of apartment building associations. The judgment of 14 September 2000 was final.
The applicant’s former wife attempted to have the proceedings reopened but on 9 November 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected her request.
2. The revision proceedings
On 15 May 2001 the Association confirmed its 1991 decision. On 23 October 2001 the municipality approved this decision. However, on 12 February 2002 it annulled its own 2001 decision, referring to the fact that the dispute had already been settled by a final court judgment. The applicant’s former wife challenged that annulment in court.
On 30 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court quashed the municipality’s decision of 2002, leaving in force its 2001 decision. An appeal by the applicant against this judgment was rejected by the Court of Appeal on 4 July 2002.
On the basis of the housing association’s confirmation in 2001 of its 1991 decision and the municipality’s confirmation of the 2001 decision, the applicant’s former wife requested the reopening of the proceedings which had ended with the final judgment of 14 September 2000.
On 24 December 2002 the Râşcani District Court accepted the request and reopened the proceedings, rejected the applicant’s claims and accepted those of his former wife. The court found that the applicant had not lived in the apartment for a long time, had failed to pay the last instalment on the apartment and had not paid for services. The fact that the 1991 decision had not been confirmed by the municipality was no longer relevant in view of the decision’s subsequent confirmation in 2001.
This judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Regional Court on 9 April 2003 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 26 November 2003.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the excessive length of the proceedings.
2. He also complained under the same Article that the trial had been unfair, since his case had been decided by an administrative and not a judicial authority.
3. He further complained under the same Article of a breach of the principle of legal certainty.
4. He finally complained under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of his “right to a home”.
THE LAW
On 20 February 2007 the parties submitted to the Court signed declarations accepting a friendly settlement agreement, according to which the Government had offered
“to pay 2,600 (two thousand six hundred) euros to Mr Veniamin Idriceanu 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
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