Communicated on 30 September 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 63239/10
Valeriu NEAMTU
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 9 August 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valeriu Neamțu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Trușeni. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Postică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and his family were victims of political repression during the Soviet regime. On 13 September 2004 he brought an action against the Strășeni local council and the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for his family’s confiscated property.
On 11 March 2008 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant’s claims in full and awarded him 511,300 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 30,450 euros (EUR)).
On 20 November 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals lodged by the Strășeni local council and by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the first-instance judgment. The representative of Strășeni local council was present in the appellate proceedings. The judgment became final in the absence of an appeal.
On 28 January 2009 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. By a letter of 30 January 2009 a bailiff afforded the Ministry of Finance a time‑limit of fifteen days to comply with the judgment in the applicant’s favour; the original of the judgment was attached to the letter. An entry stamp of the Ministry of Finance dated 30 January 2009 confirmed the receipt of this letter.
On 29 May 2009 the Ministry of Finance lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice an appeal in cassation. It his written submissions before the Supreme Court of Justice the applicant argued that the appeal was time‑barred because the Ministry of Finance had learned about the appellate judgment at the latest on 30 January 2009.
At the hearing of 18 November 2009 before the Supreme Court of Justice the Strășeni local council submitted an appeal in cassation and argued that it had been lodged on 30 December 2008. The appeal bore an exit stamp of the Strășeni administration dated 30 December 2008 and no entry stamp of a court’s registry. In his written submissions before the Supreme Court of Justice the applicant argued that the appeal was time‑barred because, in the absence of evidence that it was actually lodged with a court at an earlier date, its lodging date should be considered 18 November 2009, which was eight months after the legal time-limit had expired.
On 10 February 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted both appeals in cassation and decreased the compensation awarded to the applicant to MDL 33,300 (equivalent to EUR 1,910). The court stated that the appeals were not time-barred, because according to the court, they were lodged on 30 December 2008 and 11 May 2009 by the Strășeni local council and by the Ministry of Finance respectively, which was within the two-month time‑limit calculated from the moment when a copy of the appellate judgment was sent on 13 January 2009 and on 15 April 2009 to the Strășeni local council and to the Ministry of Finance respectively. The court did not answer the applicant’s arguments that the Ministry of Finance had learned about the appellate judgment at an earlier date and that there was no evidence in the file that the Strășeni local council had actually lodged the appeal on 30 December 2008. That judgment was final.
B. Relevant domestic law
According to Article 434 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, as worded at the time of the events, an appeal in cassation may be lodged within two months from the delivery of the appellate judgment and in case the full text of the judgment is provided at a later date, from the date when the parties are informed in written about the signature of the full judgment text.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment of the Chişinău Court of Appeals of 20 November 2008 delivered in his favour, without providing any reasons for upholding appeals in cassation which had been lodged after the expiry of the time-limit for lodging them.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was there a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the re-opening of the proceedings by the Supreme Court of Justice? In particular, were the appeals in cassation lodged within the legal time-limit and did the Supreme Court of Justice give relevant and sufficient reasons for declaring those appeals admissible (Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 39‑44, 14 November 2006, Ceachir v. Moldova, no. 11712/04, §§ 41-48, 15 January 2008)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy