FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13580/04
by Alexandra PAGAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Alexandra Pagân (“the applicant”), is a Moldovan national who was born in 1932 and lived in Edineţ. She was represented before the Court by Mr Victor Marcu, a lawyer practising in Edineţ. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr Vitalie Pârlog.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1949 the applicant was persecuted by the communist authorities and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Her property was confiscated.
In 1989 she was rehabilitated.
In 2001 she brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finance, seeking compensation for the confiscated property.
On 24 May 2001 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her 194,479 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 17,300 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
On 13 June 2001 a bailiff received the enforcement warrant.
On the date of lodging the application with the Court the judgment had allegedly not been enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court had been infringed by the failure to enforce the judgment of 24 May 2001.
She also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 24 May 2001 had infringed her right to property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
PROCEDURE
On 21 October 2005 the Government were invited to submit written observations on the application.
On 21 December 2005 the Government informed the Court that the application and the power of attorney issued in respect of the applicant’s representative could not have been signed by Mrs Alexandra Pagân in March and April 2004. They submitted a copy of Mrs Pagân’s personal record card (fişa personală), according to which she had died in March 2003.
The Government also submitted a document signed by Mrs Pagân’s daughter, according to which she had been paid MDL 116,916 on 15 April 2004 and MDL 77,503 on 24 May 2004. She confirmed that the judgment of 24 May 2001 had been enforced and declared that she did not have any claims against the Edineţ Department of Finance or the bailiff.
In view of the fact that Mrs Alexandra Pagân had already died by the date the application was submitted and that her daughter had been paid the “judgment debt”, the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases as being “abusive” and lodged by a person who did not have “victim” status.
On 24 January 2006 the Court transmitted the observations to the person who had allegedly been appointed in April 2004 as Ms Pagân’s representative, and invited him to submit his written comments by 21 March 2006.
Having received no reply and in view of the enforcement of the judgment of 24 May 2001, the same addressee was requested to inform the Court, before 27 August 2007, whether the applicant wished to pursue the examination of the case by the Court. The Court also pointed out that the deadline for submitting comments had expired and warned him that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, it might decide to strike the case out of its list. The addressee received that letter but did not reply.
THE LAW
The Court notes that under Article 34 of the Convention:
“[The Court] may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals 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. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.”
The Court also notes that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list, in particular, if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the provision that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
In the absence of any comments on the Government’s submissions, the Court notes in the first place that on 22 March 2004, when the application was submitted to the Court, Mrs Alexandra Pagân had already been dead for more than one year.
Secondly, in view of the fact that Mrs Alexandra Pagân died in 2003, it is unclear who signed the power of attorney in respect of her representative on 27 April 2004.
Thirdly, the Court notes that Mrs Pagân’s daughter was paid the “judgment debt” on 15 April and 24 May 2004, and that she has never expressed the intention of becoming a party to the proceedings before the Court.
Finally, it is to be noted that the person who was identified as Mrs Pagân’s representative in the power of attorney of 27 April 2004 did not reply to the Court’s letters of 24 January 2006 and 16 July 2007.
On the facts and for the reasons set out above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of the application. 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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy