SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8189/09
Valentina STEŢCO
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 November 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 March 2011 and 7 February 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s replies to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Valentina Stețco, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Chişinău. She was represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
On 22 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a final judgment in the applicant’s favour. The court acknowledged the applicant as the sole shareholder of N., a company incorporated under Moldovan law, and rejected the claims of other parties claiming to be co‑owners of N.
On 25 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the revision request of other parties, quashed the final judgment of 22 February 2007 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on the merits. In the course of reopened proceedings, the other parties lodged new claims in respect of the applicant and the court ordered interim measures.
Before the Court, the applicant complained about the abusive quashing of the final judgment in her favour.
The application had been communicated to the Government on 23 June 2010.
After communication, the Prosecutor General, following a request from the Government Agent, lodged a revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice, seeking the reopening of proceedings and the redress of the applicant’s rights. On 13 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice found a violation of the applicant’s rights as a result of the quashing of the final judgment in her favour and quashed the judgment of 25 December 2008, adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. As a result, the final judgment in the applicant’s favour was restored.
On 11 January 2012 the applicant requested the Economic District Court to discontinue the reopened civil proceedings and to annul the interim measures related to them. On 6 February 2012 the Economic District Court discontinued the civil proceedings in respect of the claims settled by the final judgment of 22 February 2007 but continued with the examination of the new claims lodged by the other parties and maintained the interim measures related to those proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the abusive quashing of the final judgment in her favour.
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by letters of 23 March 2011 and 7 February 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government acknowledge that there have been violations of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the quashing of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.
The Government ... [shall] pay the applicant 2,000 euros (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage ... and 700 euros (seven hundred euros) for legal costs and expenses.
...[The above] sums ... will be converted into Moldovan Lei at the date applicable on the date of payment and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. They will be payable within three months of the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of a failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
By letters of 27 April 2011 and 30 August 2012, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that proceedings were not discontinued in respect of all claims lodged in her respect and that the proposed compensation of damage was insufficient. She claimed 20,250 euros (EUR) as pecuniary damage, representing revenue lost due to the interim measures imposed in the course of reopened proceedings, EUR 5,000 as non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,315 as costs and expenses.
The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.
It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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.
To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the Republic of Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the principle of legal certainty (see, for example Popov v. Moldova (no. 2), no. 19960/04, §§ 52-58, 6 December 2005; Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, §§ 104-107 and 112-115, 19 December 2006; Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 38-44, 14 November 2006; Istrate v. Moldova, no. 53773/00, §§ 46-61, 13 June 2006).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – 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)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
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 under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
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 December 2016.
Hasan BakırcıPaul Lemmens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy