FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 507/04
by Vera NOVICOV
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2005,
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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Vera Novicov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1935 and lives in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
In 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), according to which she paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity. The applicant started receiving her annuity of 200 Moldovan lei (approximately 45 United States dollars at the time) on 1 August 1996. 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 cancellation of the contract.
On an unspecified date in 2001, the applicant brought a civil action against ASITO, seeking the payment of the pension to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract. ASITO lodged a counter action seeking the cancellation of the contract of 1994 on the ground that the economic situation of the country had became worse and that the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova had changed.
On 30 August 2001, the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay the pension due and to resume the execution of the contract. It also dismissed ASITO’s counter action. The court’s argument was that the contract of 1994 was legal and valid and therefore it had to be upheld by the parties.
ASITO appealed against this judgment.
On 17 January 2002, the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
ASITO did not appeal. The judgment became final and enforceable and the applicant was issued an enforcement warrant.
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 terminate 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.
On an unspecified date, ASITO brought an action against the applicant seeking the cancellation of the contract concluded in 1994 on the ground that the economic situation of the country had become worse and that the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova had changed.
On 12 February 2003 the Ciocana District Court found in favour of ASITO and cancelled the contract of 1994. It relied on the same arguments as those set out by the Plenary Supreme Court in its judgment of 11 March 2002. The applicant appealed against this judgment.
On 16 April 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Court of Appeal.
On 10 June 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in cassation.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained, in substance, of a breach of the principle of legal certainty provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She argued that the validity of her pension contract had been confirmed by a final judgment in her favour; however, it had been called into question later, after the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 11 March 2002, when the courts upheld ASITO’s action against her and ordered the cancellation of the contract.
THE LAW
On 20 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government and the applicant:
“1. The Government admits that the applicant’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention have been breached by the judgments of the Ciocana District Court, the Chişinău Regional Court and the Court of Appeal of 12 February 2003, 16 April 2003 and 10 June 2003 respectively.
2. The Government undertake to pay the applicant, with a view to settling the case, a sum of 2,500 euros to cover any damage, to be paid in Moldovan lei, at the rate applicable at the date of payment, within three months from the date on which the Court will pronounce a decision in the [present case].
3. The payment of the above amount will constitute a full and final settlement of the case.
4. The applicant shall declare her claims satisfied and shall withdraw her application [...] from the Court.
5. The applicant declares that she will not have any further pecuniary, non-pecuniary, or other claims against the Government in connection with the present case.
6. The parties shall inform the Court about the present agreement and request that the case be struck out of the list of cases.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy