FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31656/03
by Raisa GOREA and Galina GARŞTEA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 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 applicants, Mrs Raisa Gorea and Mrs Galina Garştea, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1966 and 1953, respectively, and live in Chişinău. They were represented before the Court by Mr Mihai Grivneac, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Vitalie Pârlog.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants were employees of a private company. By a decision of 24 July 2000 the employer retained from each of the applicants’ salaries 3,714 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 319.26 euros (EUR) at the time). The applicants brought an action against the employer, seeking reimbursement.
On 26 December 2000 the Ciocana District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the company to pay them MDL 3,714, each, and MDL 742.80 (the equivalent of EUR 64.86 at the time) for legal expenses. The company did not appeal against the judgment and it became final and enforceable.
On 20 September 2001 a Bailiff sent the enforcement warrants to the company, but the company did not comply with them.
Following the applicants’ complaint to the Ministry of Justice about non-enforcement, on 2 November 2001 the latter sent to a Bailiff of Ciocana District Court a request to enforce the judgment. The Ministry also asked the Bailiff to inform it, by 10 November 2001, about the steps taken and the reasons for non-enforcement. The Bailiff did not answer that letter.
On 16 January 2003 the applicants informed the Ministry of Justice that the Bailiff had not taken any steps to enforce the judgment. The Ministry did not reply to that letter.
Following several complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment lodged by the applicants with the company, on 21 August 2003 the company informed them that on 20 February 2003 the Economic Court had initiated insolvency proceedings against it and that their salaries would be paid in accordance with the law on insolvency.
On 18 March 2004 the applicants repeatedly complained to the Ministry of Justice about the non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour.
On 22 March 2004 the Ministry requested a Bailiff to enforce the judgment and to inform the applicants, by 9 April 2004, about the steps taken to enforce it.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 26 December 2000.
The applicants also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment had violated their right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 13 March 2006 the Court received the Government’s observations on the case, according to which the judgment in favour of the applicants had been enforced in August 2004. On 7 April 2006 the Court transmitted the observations to the applicants, who were invited to submit their written comments by 2 June 2006. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 1 February 2007 the Court pointed out to the applicants and their representative that the deadline for submitting comments had expired and warned them that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list. The applicants received that letter but did not reply.
In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention the Court considers that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols 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 Court’s list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy