FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3003/05
by Dumitru PLESCA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dumitru Pleşca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1942 and lives in Edineţ. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1951 the applicant and his family were deported by the Soviet authorities. All of the family’s assets were confiscated by the State.
On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of Soviet repression to claim their confiscated or nationalised property.
On an unknown date the applicant requested compensation for the property confiscated from his family. On 10 September 2003 the Edineţ District Court awarded him 70,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 4,570 euros at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable fifteen days later.
On 9 December 2003 the applicant requested the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 20 January 2004 he submitted the enforcement warrant to the Department. On 28 January 2004 the Department forwarded the warrant to the Ministry of Finance, which forwarded it to the Edineţ branch of the Department for enforcement on 16 March 2005. On 18 March 2005 the Edineţ Branch of the Department sent the warrant back to the Ministry of Finance for enforcement since it considered the Central Treasury of the Ministry to be responsible for the payment.
On 27 July 2005 the Edineţ District Court adopted another decision on the same issue in proceedings involving the same parties. As in the 2003 proceedings, the court awarded the applicant the same amount (MDL 70,000) in compensation for the property taken from his family. The court did not annul the judgment of 10 September 2003, which has not been enforced to date.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Convention and under unspecified Articles of Protocols No. 1 and No. 7 to the Convention about the above events.
THE LAW
On 8 and 29 May 2007 the parties submitted to the Court signed declarations accepting a friendly settlement agreement. According to that agreement, the Government made and the applicant accepted the
“offer to pay 7,600 (seven thousand six hundred) euros to Mr Dumitru Pleşca with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
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