Information Note on the Court’s case-law 64
May 2004
Prodan v. Moldova - 49806/99
Judgment 18.5.2004 [Section IV]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Delay by the authorities in executing final judgments ordering restitution of property: violation
Facts: The applicant, whose parents' house had been nationalised by the Soviet authorities in 1946, lodged an action for the restitution of the house. In support of her claim she invoked a Law of 1992 enabling the recovery of confiscated or nationalised property. In a judgment of March 1997, the District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the restitution of the house. As the house had been divided into six apartments the court ordered the eviction of the tenants from all of the apartments; they were to be re-housed by the Municipal Council. The judgment became enforceable in August 1998, when it was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Municipal Council informed the applicant it could not execute the judgment due to lack of funds to construct apartments for the evicted tenants. The applicant lodged an action seeking damages for the delay in enforcement, which was rejected. She subsequently brought a new action claiming money from the Municipal Council in lieu of restitution of the apartments (in respect of five of these). In October 2000, the District Court partially amended the manner in which the initial judgment was to be enforced, ordering the Municipal Council to pay the applicant the market value for the five apartments. This judgment became enforceable in January 2001. The Municipal Council paid the applicant the legally stipulated amount in November 2002. As regards the eviction of the tenants from the applicant's sixth apartment, the Municipal Council has to date still not enforced the March 1997 judgment on grounds of lack of funds.
Law: Government's preliminary objections – (i) non-exhaustion: the Government had not raised the applicant's failure to make use of two proceedings in the old Code of Civil Procedure at the stage of admissibility, nor had they sufficiently established the effectiveness of a new remedy in the new Civil Code: objection dismissed; (ii) victim status: the payment to the applicant in respect of five of the apartments had not involved any acknowledgement of the violations alleged; moreover, the initial judgment ordering eviction of all the tenants remained unenforced in respect of the sixth apartment; thus, the applicant could claim to be a victim: objection dismissed.
Article 6 § 1 – The execution of a judgment must be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6. It is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds or alternative accommodation as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, but should not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected. In the instant case, the applicant should not have been prevented from benefiting from the success of litigation, which as regards the March 1997 judgment concerned the eviction of the occupants from all the apartments, and as regards the October 2000 judgment concerned the award of the market value of five of the apartments. By failing for years to take the necessary measures to comply with final judicial decisions, the authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The impossibility for the applicant to obtain the execution of both the March 1997 and October 2000 final judgments until much later constituted an interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The failure to comply with these judgments meant that the applicant was prevented from receiving the money she could reasonably have expected to receive and from having the occupants evicted. The Government had not advanced any justification for this interference and the lack of funds and of alternative accommodation did not justify such an omission. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 14,000 euros under both heads of damage. It reserved its decision under this Article in respect of the continuing situation concerning the non-restitution of the sixth apartment.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy