FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28096/03
by S.C. CARTEA and others
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and MrsF. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 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 first applicant, S.A. Cartea (“the Company”), is a company incorporated in Moldova. It is represented by its executive director Mr Eugen Popic. The other applicants are Eugen Popic – the executive director and a shareholder of the Company; S.R.L. Libris – a shareholder of the Company also represented by Eugen Popic; Irina Popic – a shareholder of the Company; and S.A. Spirit Ardent – a shareholder of the Company represented by Irina Popic. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Pârlog.
The background to this application is a dispute between the applicants with a group of minority shareholders of the Company concerning proprietary rights over a bookstore located in Chişinău.
The dispute ended with the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 21 April 2004 which ruled in favour of the group of minority shareholders.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of those proceedings their property rights were infringed.
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 16 December 2005 the Court communicated the case to the Government. On 10 March 2006 the Court received a letter from Eugen Popic informing it that the applicants represented by him did not want to continue the proceedings before it since the case had been resolved at the domestic level.
By a registered letter of 12 June 2006 the Court requested Eugen Popic to send it the relevant documents concerning the domestic settlement of the case; however, it received no reply.
On 7 March 2007 the Court asked Irina Popic to inform it whether the applicants represented by her intended to maintain their application.
On 3 May 2007 Ms Irina Popic informed the Court that the case had been settled domestically and that she and the applicants represented by her did not intend to pursue the case.
In the light of the above, and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicants 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.
The case should accordingly be struck out of the list of cases and the application to it of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention discontinued.
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