FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 19274/03
by Eduard ENACHI
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 7 March 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Eduard Enachi, is an Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Soroca. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vitalie Pârlog.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested by Moldovan police, without a warrant, on Ukrainian territory, on 5 December 1998. He alleges that he was pushed into the boot of a car and transported to Moldova, where he was charged with robbery and smuggling. He also alleges that he was subjected to torture and degrading treatment during detention. He was detained on remand until 9 June 2000, when the Court of Appeal acquitted him.
The applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finances seeking payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the unlawful investigation and his detention on remand for nineteen months.
On 1 November 2001 the Briceni District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him 350,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 30,065.89 euros (EUR) at the time). The Ministry appealed.
On 22 January 2002 the Bălţi Regional Court dismissed the Ministry’s appeal and the latter lodged an appeal in cassation with the Court of Appeal.
By a final judgment of 11 April 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in cassation and reduced the amount of compensation to MDL 20,000 (EUR 1,683.46).
On 17 June 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the above-mentioned judgments and for a reduction in the amount of damages.
On 11 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Deputy Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the above-mentioned judgments. The Supreme Court adopted a new judgment and awarded the applicant MDL 5,000 (EUR 377.47 at the time) in compensation for unlawful detention.
On 10 April 2006 the Government informed the Court that, following the re-opening of the proceedings, on 15 March 2006, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 125,000 (EUR 8,058 at the time) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of his unlawful detention. It also found that there had been a breach of the applicant’s 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 Supreme Court of Justice of 11 April 2002. The Supreme Court awarded him MDL 27,000 (EUR 1,740.63 at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of his unlawful detention, MDL 40,000 (EUR 2,578.72 at the time) for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention and MDL 5,000 (EUR 322.34 at the time) for costs and expenses, including the applicant’s representative’s fees incurred before the Court.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law was set out in Roşca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 16, 22 March 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unlawful detention between 5 December 1998 and 9 June 2000.
He alleged that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 September 2002, which set aside a final judgment in his favour, had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicant also complained that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, (namely, money awarded by a final judgment) had been breached by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 September 2002.
Finally, he submitted that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because the courts had incorrectly applied the law and adopted unlawful judgments in his case.
THE LAW
A. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
The applicant complained that his detention from 5 December 1998 to 9 June 2000 had been unlawful. He invoked Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which states:
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so..."
The Court notes that the applicant’s detention ended on 9 June 2000 when he was acquitted. However, his complaint about it was introduced on 7 March 2003, more than six months after the date on which the detention came to an end.
It follows that this complaint was introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
B. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of a final judgment
The applicant complained that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 September 2002, which set aside a final judgment in his favour, had violated Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The relevant part of Article 6 § 1 reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...”
The relevant part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
The applicant asked the Court to award him EUR 50,000, without providing details of the basis of this claim.
The Court recalls that a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive the individual of his or her status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1995, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania, judgment of 28 September 1999, Reports 1999-VI, § 44).
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the quashing of the final judgment of 11 April 2002 given in the applicant’s favour was found unlawful by the Supreme Court of Justice. The Court accepts that, in the instant case, the State authorities have acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s rights. Moreover, the amount awarded can be considered sufficient to cover both the unlawful detention (see, for example, Duca v. Moldova (dec.), no. 1579/02, 11 April 2006) and the violation of the applicant’s rights under the Convention (see, for example, Roşca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 41, 22 March 2005). In such circumstances, the Court accepts that in the present case the applicant received adequate compensation in relation to his complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Accordingly, the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” and this complaint must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
C. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the incorrect application of the law by the courts
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and declares the application inadmissible.
T. L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy