FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17296/04
by Ion LACHI
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,
MrG. Bonello,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2004,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ion Lachi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented by Mr Vitalie Iordachi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău and member of the non-governmental organisation “Lawyers for Human Rights”. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms Lilia Grimalschi, Head of Department of the Office of the Government Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), whereby he paid an insurance premium in exchange for a monthly annuity pension of 200 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 48 United States dollars (USD) at the time).
In January 1999 ASITO stopped paying the pension, invoking a change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova and calling for the termination of the contract.
On an unspecified date in 2001, the applicant brought a civil action against ASITO, seeking the payment of his pension arrears and requiring the company to abide by the 1994 contract.
By a final judgment of 11 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay him his pension arrears and to resume the execution of the contract.
On 14 December 2001 the Prosecutor General, in the context of different but related proceedings, lodged an “appeal in the interest of the law” with the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Prosecutor General, the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding the contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all courts.
On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former. In particular, it found that the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova could be relied upon by ASITO in order to avoid unilaterally the annuity contracts. It also found that its judgment was binding on all courts, although it could not affect already existing judgments nor be used against parties to proceedings which had already been decided.
Subsequently, on an unspecified date in 2002 ASITO brought a civil action against the applicant asking for the termination of the contract concluded in 1994. It relied on the same reasons as contained in the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 11 March 2002.
By a final judgment of 8 October 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of ASITO and ordered the termination of the contract concluded in 1994.
On 25 October 2004, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice upheld a revision request lodged against its judgment of 11 March 2002 by a group of ASITO pensioners. The Supreme Court quashed its previous judgment while finding, inter alia, that ASITO could not rely on the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova for avoiding its annuity contracts.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained, in substance, of a breach of the principle of legal certainty provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He argued that the validity of his pension contract had been confirmed by a final judgment in his favour; however, it had been called into question following the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 11 March 2002 and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 8 October 2003 to find in favour of ASITO.
He further complained about the unfairness of the proceedings because of an alleged secret arrangement between ASITO and the Government. He claimed that ASITO had an agreement with the Government according to which it would withdraw its application (No. 40663/98) from the Court in exchange for the Government’s assistance with their problem with the pensioners.
Finally, the applicant alleged that his right, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions (namely his pension right) had been breached by the State, in particular by the judgment of the domestic court which cancelled his annuity contract.
THE LAW
On 20 November 2006 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2003‑VI) and informed the Court that they were ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In respect of pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the applicant the equivalent in MDL of 850 euros (EUR). In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Government proposed to award the applicant the equivalent in MDL of EUR 2,000. They also proposed to award him EUR 300 for costs and expenses. The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
On 1 March 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that Mr Lachi had decided to withdraw his application from the Court’s list of cases. On 29 June and 2 July 2007 the Registry contacted the applicant’s representative and asked him to confirm whether the applicant wished to maintain his position expressed in his letter of 1 March 2007. He explained that the applicant wished to do so for reasons connected with his employment as a civil servant. On 13 July 2007 the applicant’s representative reiterated the applicant’s wish to withdraw his application and by a registered letter of 16 July 2007 the Court acknowledged its receipt. It was also sent to the Government for information.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the 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 this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
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