2
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13333/07
Angela GLOBA against the Republic of Moldova
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged from 15 January 2007 to 12 December 2008,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government from 15 May 2014 to 4 July 2014 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
3. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, are set out in the appendix table and may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, obliging local public authorities to provide them with social housing.
5. Before the Court the applicants complained about the failure to enforce the judgments in their favour within a reasonable time. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
6. The cases were communicated to the Government following the adoption of the pilot judgment in the case of Olaru and others (Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009).
7. To date, the judgments in the cases Globa and Guțuleac (nos. 13333/07 and 15310/07) have been enforced (see the appendix table). The judgment in the case Avtudov and others (no. 844/09) remains unenforced to date. The non-enforcement periods vary from 13 to 84 months.
8. In his submissions of 7 October 2011, the representative of the applicants in the case Avtudov and others (no. 844/09) notified the Court that the applicants Victor and Maria Avtudov had died on 26 June 2010 and 21 April 2011 respectively.
THE LAW
9. The Court notes that the applicants Ms M. Avtudov and Mr V. Avtudov in case no. 844/09 died in the course of the proceedings before the Court. No heirs or relatives have expressed any wish to continue the proceedings before the Court. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in respect of these applicants within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, Léger v. France ((striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, §§ 43‑51, 30 March 2009). Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of this part of the application by virtue of that Article. Accordingly, this part of this application should be struck out of the list.
10. The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications and examine them in a single decision.
11. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters from 15 May 2014 to 4 July 2014, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
12. In those declarations the Government acknowledged that the applicants had suffered a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of non-enforcement of the judicial decisions within a reasonable time. The Government proposed to pay in compensation of any damages and of costs and expenses, as follows:
- in case no. 13333/07 – 2,000 euros (EUR) for a non-enforcement period of 48 months;
- in case no. 15310/07 – EUR 1,000 for a non‑enforcement period of 13 months; and
- in case no. 844/09 – EUR 4,500 to each of the four applicant households for a non-enforcement period of 84 months, as follows: EUR 4,500 for the household of the applicant Mr Boris Avtudov, EUR 4,500 for the household of the applicant Ms Elena Avtudov, EUR 4,500 for the household of the applicant Mr Vladimir Avtudov and EUR 4,500 for the household of the applicant Ms Olga Balacan.
The Government considered that the pecuniary damages claimed by the applicants were not substantiated and that there was no causal link between the violation found and the damages claimed. For these reasons, they should be dismissed.
13. The awarded sums, which are to cover any 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. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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.
14. By letters from 8 July 2014 to 18 September 2014, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations because the amount proposed by the Government was insufficient as follows:
- in case no. 13333/07 the applicant claimed EUR 50,000 as damages and EUR 2,000 as costs and expenses without providing any substantiation for her claims;
- in case no. 15310/07 the applicant claimed EUR 50,000 as damages and EUR 2,000 as costs and expenses without providing any substantiation for his claims; and
- in case no. 844/09 the applicants claimed EUR 5,000 in compensation of non-pecuniary damage for each applicant, EUR 1,000 as costs and expenses, and the compensation of the market value of apartments, in particular, EUR 30,000 for each of the four applicant households.
15. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications”.
16. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.
17. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
18. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the Republic of Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in regard to the non-enforcement of final court judgments.
19. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see, Olaru v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. 476/07, §§ 14-19, 12 October 2010; Chetruş and 24 others v. Moldova (dec.), nos. 15953/07 et seq., 25 January 2011; Tudor Peciul and 9 others v. Moldova (dec.), nos. 15279/07 et seq., 7 September 2010; Modranga and others v. Moldova (dec.), nos. 33328/06 et seq., 4 June 2013; Antoci v. Moldova (dec.), no. 9209/08, 17 September 2013) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1(c)).
With regard to the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage, the Court notes that the applicants either failed to substantiate their claims or claimed the market value of apartments to be provided. As in the cases of Panov v. Moldova (no. 37811/04, §§ 26-28, 13 July 2010) and Jomiru and Crețu v. Moldova (no. 28430/06, 17 April 2012), in the present case, the Municipality was ordered to rent out to the applicants alternative accommodation. In those cases, the Court dismissed the applicants’ claims for the full value of an apartment as being without any legal basis (Panov, cited above, § 28, and Jomiru and Crețu, cited above, § 44). The Court sees no reason to depart from that finding in the present cases.
20. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
21. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
22. As regards the question of implementation of the Government’s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee’s decisions of 3 June 2010 concerning the implementation of the Olaru and others judgment (see the Decision of the Committee of Ministers about the enforcement of the judgment of Olaru and others adopted at the 1136th DH Meeting on 6-8 March 2012, CM/Del/Dec(2012)1136/15 and the decision in Modranga and others, cited above)
23. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the part of application no. 844/09 concerning the complaints of the applicants Ms M. Avtudov and Mr V. Avtudov out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No
Application no and date of lodging
Applicants’ details
Final judgment and details of enforcement
Case details
13333/07,
lodged on 15/01/2007
Angela GLOBA,
born on 22/09/1970
Moldovan national,
living in Chișinău,
Represented by Anatolie Bîzgu
Supreme Court of Justice, 19/10/2006, enforced on 19/01/2010
Social housing case
(internally displaced person)
15310/07,
lodged on
17/03/2007
Leonid GUȚULEAC,
born on 30/07/1965
Moldovan national,
living in Chișinău,
Represented by Anatolie Bîzgu
Supreme Court of Justice, 17/01/2007,
enforced on 21/02/2008
Social housing case
(internally displaced person)
844/09,
lodged on
12/12/2008
Maria AVTUDOV
born on 07/07/1923, deceased on 21/04/2011
Boris AVTUDOV
born on 04/08/1945
Supreme Court of Justice, 17/10/2007, unenforced to date
Social housing case
(flooding victims)
Elena AVTUDOV
Born on 19/09/1955
Victor AVTUDOV
born on 13/07/1977, deceased on 26/06/2010
Vladimir AVTUDOV
born on 16/04/1951
Olga BALACAN
born on 04/04/1982
Moldovan nationals, living in Chişinău,
Represented by Denis Avtudov
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy