FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24316/02
by Gheorghe DIVIZA and Others
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 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 declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Gheorghe Diviza, Mrs Lidia Olaru, Mrs Lilia Diviza, Mr Mihail Orheianu, Mrs Maria Camenschi, Mr Ion Camenschi and Mr Vasile Talmaci, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1938, 1948, 1972, 1953, 1952, 1953 and 1942 respectively and live in Hânceşti. They were represented before the Court by Mr Vitalie Postolache, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vitalie Pârlog.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants and the Department for Privatisation and Administration of State property (“the Department”) were shareholders of a gas distributing company. In 2000 the applicants sought the redemption of their shares.
On 24 May 2000 the Hânceşti District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and, inter alia, allocated them a part of the company’s assets, valued at 295,552 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 25,735.76 euros (EUR) at the time). The Department did not appeal against the judgment within the legal time-limit and it became final and enforceable after fifteen days. Nevertheless, on 21 July 2000 the Department lodged an appeal, which was dismissed on 10 May 2001 by the Chişinău Regional Court for failure to observe the legal time-limit for lodging it.
The Department did not challenge this judgment.
On 11 August 2000 the applicants founded a new company after having received the assets in accordance with the judgment of 24 May 2000.
On 9 November 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments in favour of the applicants.
On 19 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed the above-mentioned judgments and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings.
Following the communication of the case, on 11 April 2006 the Government and the applicants concluded a friendly settlement agreement. According to the agreement, the Government’s Agent had to request the Prosecutor General’s Office to lodge a revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice seeking the discontinuation of the annulment proceedings. If successful, the parties agreed to ask the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
On 31 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s revision request, quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 December 2001 and the other judgments which had been adopted during the re-opened proceedings and discontinued the request for annulment proceedings. The Supreme Court found that there had been a breach of the applicants’ rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the quashing of the judgment of the Hânceşti District Court of 24 May 2000. It awarded EUR 3,000 to the first applicant (Mr Gheorghe Diviza) and EUR 2,000 to the other applicants (Mrs Lidia Olaru, Mrs Lilia Diviza, Mr Mihail Orheianu, Mrs Maria Camenschi, Mr Ion Camenschi and Mr Vasile Talmaci) each for non-pecuniary damage. The Supreme Court also awarded EUR 500 for costs and expenses and EUR 3,520 for the applicants’ representative’s fees incurred before the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings before the domestic courts.
They also complained that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 19 December 2001, which had set aside a final judgment in their favour, violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
They alleged that the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 December 2001 had the effect of infringing their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as secured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Finally, they submitted that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention because they did not have effective remedies before the domestic courts.
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;”
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.”
Both parties informed the Court that they had reached a friendly settlement and the applicants stated that they were satisfied with the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment of 31 May 2006. The parties requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention; and
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy