SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30061/13
GVG-COM S.R.L. and Others
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Diana Sârcu, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 30061/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 April 2013 by GVG-COM S.R.L., a legal entity incorporated in Moldova (“the applicant company”), which was represented by Mr O. Tănase, lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaints of the applicant company concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (insufficient reasoning of domestic court decisions) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the fining of the applicant company by the customs authorities on several occasions on account of alleged irregularities during the customs clearance of imported merchandise and the ensuing proceedings by which the applicant company challenged those fines.
2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention the applicant company alleged that the decisions of the domestic courts were insufficiently reasoned, in breach of the principle of legal certainty, and that the interference with its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions had not been in accordance with the law.
3. After the communication of the present case to the Government, the Government Agent initiated review proceedings against the impugned final judgments in the domestic courts.
4. The review requests were upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice and the impugned judgments of that court and of the lower courts were quashed. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Justice acknowledged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as alleged by the applicant and communicated to the Government, and awarded the applicant company in total 1,505 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. As a result of the revision proceedings the decisions of the customs authorities imposing fines on the applicant company were equally quashed.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5. The Government argued that the applicant company had lost its victim status.
6. The applicant company submitted that in spite of the favourable decisions of the domestic courts in the review proceedings and of the quashing of the decisions of the customs authorities imposing fines on it, the bailiff had not replied to its request to immediately put an official end to the enforcement proceedings by adopting a special decision to that effect.
7. The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2009 (extracts)). A decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his 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 Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). As to the redress which is appropriate and sufficient in order to remedy a breach of a Convention right at national level, the Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at stake (see Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 70, 2 November 2010).
8. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that following the review proceedings initiated by the Government Agent, the domestic courts fully accepted the applicant company’s claims, quashed the impugned decisions of the customs authorities imposing fines on it, expressly acknowledged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant company compensation.
9. The Court notes the applicant company’s argument to the effect that the bailiff did not reply to its request to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. However, the applicant company did not show in which way that omission could be prejudicial to its interests once the decisions of the customs authorities imposing fines on it were no longer in force and could no longer be enforced against it.
10. This being said and noting that the applicant company does not raise an issue with the amount of compensation awarded to it, the Court considers that the measures adopted by the domestic courts as a result of the review proceedings constituted an appropriate redress in the circumstances of the case and that the applicant company should be considered as having lost its victim status in relation to the present application. Thus, the Court concludes that the applicant company is no longer a victim of the alleged violations and that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 November 2022.
Dorothee von Arnim Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President