FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77611/01
by Dmitrii PERELIGHIN and Others
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 January 2001,
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 applicants, Mr Dmitrii Perelighin and his sisters, Ms Maria Luneva and Ms Aksenia Lopuhova, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1934, 1937 and 1941 respectively and live in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1949 the Soviet authorities implemented their collectivisation policy and the applicants' parents were deprived of their land.
On 28 May 1999 the applicants brought an action against the Anenii Noi Local Council (“the Local Council”), seeking the allocation of a plot of land, as provided for by the Land Code.
On 26 July 1999 the Anenii Noi District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the Local Council to allocate 2 hectares of land to the first applicant and 1.5 hectares of land to each of his sisters. The judgment was not appealed against and after 15 days it became final.
On 31 May 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment of the judgment of 26 July 1999.
On 30 August 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed the final judgment in favour of the applicants and dismissed their action.
Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General's Office to lodge a revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice to quash its judgment of 30 August 2000. On 23 May 2007 the Deputy Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent's request and lodged a revision request relying on Article 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 12 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the revision request, found that there had been a breach of the applicants' rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the quashing of the final judgment of the Anenii Noi District Court of 26 July 1999 and upheld that judgment. The Supreme Court also awarded the applicants 17,205 Moldovan lei (MDL) (1,052 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the impossibility to use their land (MDL 6,805 to Mr Dmitrii Perelighin and MDL 5,200 to Ms Maria Luneva and Ms Aksenia Lopuhova, each), EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage (EUR 1,500 to Mr Dmitrii Perelighin and EUR 1,000 to Ms Maria Luneva and Ms Aksenia Lopuhova, each) and EUR 60 for costs and expenses.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law was set out in Roşca v. Moldova, no. 6267/02, § 16, 22 March 2005.
The Code of Civil Procedure of 12 June 2003, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
Section 449 Grounds for revision
Revision may be requested:
...
j) When the Government of the Republic of Moldova, represented by the Government Agent, or the European Court of Human Rights has started a procedure of friendly settlement in a pending case against the Republic of Moldova, and the Government consider that by a final decision of a court a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova or by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been breached.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 30 August 2000, which set aside a final judgment in their favour, had had the effect of infringing their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
THE LAW
Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
(b) the matter has been resolved...”
Rule 43 § 1 of the Rules of Court, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
On 30 July 2008 the Government informed the Court that on 27 June 2008 the applicants had been issued with registration titles over their land and on 6 May 2008 they had received the amounts awarded by the judgment of 12 September 2007. The Government considered that since the applicants had been awarded adequate redress, they could no longer claim to be “victims”. They requested the Court to reject the applicants' complaints as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
On 29 July 2008 the applicants also informed the Court that they had been issued with registration titles over their land and requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention and to the fact that the applicants have been awarded adequate redress by the domestic courts, the Court notes that they do not intend to pursue their 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 the application to be continued.
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