FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28412/03
by Rodica GURANDA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 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 letter from the applicants dated 26 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Rodica Guranda and Mrs Pelaghia Guranda, are two Moldovan nationals who were born in 1981 and 1948 respectively and live in Chişinău. The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms Natalia Mardari, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. 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 applicants are the daughter and wife of the deceased Mr Alexandru Guranda, who was a judge of the Chişinău Regional Court. He died in January 2001.
After his death, the applicants applied to the Ministry of Finance for an indemnity of 238,486 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 20,771 euros (EUR) at the time), as provided by the Law “On the Status of Judges”. Since the Ministry refused to comply with their request, the applicants brought an action against the former seeking the payment of the indemnity.
On 8 November 2001 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and awarded them the entire amount claimed.
On 12 February and 16 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court and the Court of Appeal, respectively, dismissed the Ministry’s appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was final and enforceable.
On an unspecified date after the delivery of the final judgment the Ministry partially complied with it and paid the applicants MDL 185,322 (EUR 16,092 at the time).
Following a request of the Ministry of Finance, on 16 September 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment of the final judgment of 16 April 2002.
On 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the final judgment in favour of the applicants. Although the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ action, it mentioned in the judgment that the amount which had already been paid to the applicants should not be recovered.
Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General to lodge a request with the Supreme Court of Justice to quash its judgment of 16 October 2002 and to discontinue the request for annulment proceedings. He considered that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicants following the annulment proceedings had breached their rights under the Convention.
On an unspecified date in 2005 the Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent’s request and lodged a revision request relying on section 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure. By a judgment of 16 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for revision, quashed its judgment of 16 October 2002 and discontinued the annulment proceedings.
On 15 February 2007 the applicants filed a request with the Supreme Court of Justice seeking the issuance of an additional judgment to that of 16 November 2005. In particular, they sought the payment of compensation for the alleged breach of their rights under the Convention.
On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld their request and 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 final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 16 April 2002. The Supreme Court also awarded them MDL 38,455.76 (EUR 2,302.74 at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the impossibility to use their money, EUR 4,400 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 804 for costs and expenses, including the applicants’ representative’s fees incurred before the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment of 16 April 2002 as a result of the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment. They also complained under Article 6 § 1 that in its judgment of 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice had committed numerous errors when assessing the facts of the case.
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; or
(b) the matter has been resolved...”
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.”
On 26 February 2007 the Government informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings, which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 21 February 2007. The Government considered that since the applicants had been awarded adequate redress, they could no longer claim to be “victims”. They requested the Court to reject the applicants’ complaints as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
On 26 February 2007 the applicants also informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings, which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 21 February 2007. Since the Supreme Court had awarded them adequate redress for the violation of the Convention, they requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention and to the fact that the applicants have been awarded adequate redress by the domestic courts, the Court notes that they do not intend to pursue their application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court). 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