FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 31927/03
by Oleg RAHOTCHI
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsL. Mijović,
MrD. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Oleg Rahotchi, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Chisinau.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant alleges that his grandfather was a victim of political repression in 1941, when he had to flee to Romania to save himself from persecution. He submits that his parents remained living in the house but were evicted in 1944 without any reason.
On 24 October 1949 a local court found that the applicant's grandfather was in all probability killed during a bombing of Chisinau in June 1944 and declared him missing. The court also prolonged the term for accepting the inheritance of the applicant's grandfather's house in favour of the applicant's father.
In 1952 the family house and the land around it were declared “property without an owner” and thus State property.
On 10 May 1995 the applicant's father obtained a judgment of the local court confirming that the applicant's grandfather had been subjected to political repression and that his house and land were nationalised.
In 1995 the applicant's father requested the return of the house and land which were by then owned by a third party. On 23 June 1996 the Centru District Court found in his favour and awarded him the house and the land claimed.
In October 2001 the Prosecutor General filed a request for annulment of the judgment of 10 May 1995 asking the court to reject the claim that the applicant's father had been subjected to political repression. On 19 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General's request for annulment and quashed the 1995 judgment. It ordered a full re-hearing of the case.
On 11 April 2002 the applicant's father died. The applicant continued the proceedings.
On 23 May 2002 the Centru District Court awarded the applicant the house and land. On 9 October 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment in regard to the house but not in regard to the land.
On 11 February 2003, the Court of Appeal set aside that judgment and rejected the applicant's claim because the crucial factual circumstance of repression against his father had not been proven. That judgment was final.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Court refers to its description of the relevant domestic law and practice in its decision of even date herewith in the case of Frunze v. Moldova (Application no. 42308/02).
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol 1 because of the annulment of a final judgment in his favour.
2. He also argues that Article 6 § 1 was violated because the courts in the post-annulment proceedings wrongly interpreted the evidence, incorrectly applied the law and were generally not impartial and objective.
3. He also further contends that his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1 were breached as a result of the post-annulment proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the annulment of a final judgment in his favour further to a request made by the Prosecutor General. He relies on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1:
“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...”.
Article 1 of Protocol 1:
“1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...”
The Court recalls that “the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings” (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no. 69582/01, 12 February 2004). The quashing of the final judgment in this case took place on 19 December 2001. The six-month period started running on both complaints from that date while this application was introduced on 3 July 2003, more than 18 months later.
The complaint had been introduced therefore outside the time-limit set down by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
2. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints under these Articles. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Michael O'BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy