FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 757/04
by Andrei DRUTA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrei Druţă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1987 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by his parents P. and L. Druţă. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 August 2002 the applicant, who was fifteen years old at the time, was travelling by train to Bucharest, Romania. His final destinations were Hungary, Germany and Switzerland, where he was supposed to participate in a dance tournament. He was unaccompanied and had a valid Moldovan passport with visas for the countries of destination and a declaration by his parents, made before a notary, by which he was authorised to travel abroad by himself.
At the Ungheni border-crossing between Moldova and Romania, he was stopped by the border police and refused leave to cross on the ground that he was not accompanied by his parents. He had to get a lift from a passing car to get home.
On an unspecified date the applicant’s parents wrote to the Department of Border Police and asked for an account of the refusal to let their son cross the border.
On 3 October 2002 the Department of Border Police wrote to the applicant’s parents informing them that, according to Article 5 of the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Romania regarding migration of 29 June 2001, a minor could cross the border only if accompanied by his parents or legal representative.
The applicant’s parents disagreed with the Department of Border Police’s interpretation of the treaty and initiated a court action in which they claimed pecuniary compensation for their son’s lost opportunity to take part in the dance tournament. They argued that he had previously travelled by himself on the basis of a declaration made by them and that the actions of the border police had been abusive.
On 2 April 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal found in favour of the applicant’s parents, interpreting the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Romania as permitting the applicant, who had a valid passport, to travel unattended between the two countries. It also awarded the applicant MDL 519 for pecuniary damage. The Department of Border Police appealed against the judgment.
On 4 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, giving a different interpretation to the bilateral treaty. According to it, a minor could never travel to Romania unaccompanied.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair since the Supreme Court of Justice misinterpreted the provisions of the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Romania.
2. The applicant also argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 4 June 2003 was not pronounced publicly.
3. He also complained under paragraph 2 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that he was not allowed to leave his country.
THE LAW
On 20 June 2006 the Court communicated the present case to the Government and invited the applicant to appoint a representative by 1 August 2006. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 13 September 2006 the Registry of the Court pointed out to the applicant that the deadline for appointing a representative had expired and invited him repeatedly to appoint a representative by 11 December 2006. The Registry also warned the applicant that in the absence of a reply the Court may infer that he had lost interest in the case and did not intend to pursue it. The applicant received that letter but did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application. 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.
Fatoş AracıJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy