FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10922/03
by Petru PLOTNIC
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2003,
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, Mr Petru Plotnic, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Sangerei and who was not represented before the Court. The Moldovan Government were represented by their Agent at the time, Mr V. Pârlog.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was working as a doctor. In November 2000 he was dismissed from work. He brought an action against his former employer challenging the legality of his dismissal.
On 29 August 2001 the Sangerei District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered his former employer to re-employ him. However, that judgment was not enforced until after the communication of the present case to the respondent Government in October 2003.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that by reason of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 29 August 2001 his right to have his civil rights determined by a court within a reasonable time and his right of access to court had been violated.
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 of the Rules of Court, 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 in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention....”
On 7 June 2006 the applicant informed the Court that shortly after the communication of his case the final judgment 29 August 2001 has been enforced. Since the situation has been remedied, he informed the Court that he did not want to pursue the case and requested it to strike the application out of the list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application since the matter before it has been resolved. 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.
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