SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23708/12
Iuri SOROCHIN
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 February 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Iuri Sorochin, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1985. He was represented before the Court by Mr Nemtanu, a lawyer practising in Ialoveni.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the quashing of the final judgment of 4 March 2011 favourable to him as a result of upholding a late appeal by the Chișinău Court of Appeal, were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).
After the communication, the Government initiated revision proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice with a view to remedying the situation complained about by the applicant. By a final judgment of 21 September 2016, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Government’s revision request and quashed all the judgments subsequent to that of 4 March 2011. It also upheld the latter judgment. The Supreme Court also found a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the abusive quashing and awarded the applicant compensation of 904 euros (EUR) for the non-pecuniary damage suffered.
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided that the Government acknowledged the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They also noted that as a result of the revision procedure initiated by them, the Supreme Court had remedied the situation and compensated the applicant. Therefore, they invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
By a letter of 18 January 2017, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount awarded to him by the Supreme Court of Justice was too small.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the abusive quashing of final judgments (see, for example, Popov v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 19960/04, 6 December 2005).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant by the Supreme Court of Justice it its judgment of 21 September 2016 – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 1 April 2021.
Liv TigerstedtBranko Lubarda
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy