FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29493/06
by Leonid GATCAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 July 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Leonid Gaţcan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1967 and lives in Molovata Nouă. 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 an employee of the Ministry of Interior (“the Ministry”).
On 22 September 1997 the Dubăsari District Court ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant an allowance of 1,408 Moldovan lei (MDL) (300 euros (EUR) at the time)). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final fifteen days later. The District Court issued an enforcement warrant which was sent to the Ministry for enforcement.
On different dates in 2006 the applicant asked for the judgments to be enforced. On 23 April 2006 the Ministry informed him that the enforcement warrant had been sent to the Centru Bailiff's Office in September 2005.
The judgment has not been enforced to date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been infringed by the failure to enforce the final judgment in his favour.
The applicant also alleged that failure to enforce had infringed his right to protection of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 5 September 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova offer to pay 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) euros to Mr Leonid Gaţcan, 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, 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.”
On 28 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Mr Leonid Gaţcan, note that the Government of Moldova are prepared to pay the sum of 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) euros 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, 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a 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).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy