FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34864/03
by Ion STOIAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 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 regard to the parties’ formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ion Stoian, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1960 and lives in Cahul. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant worked as a judge in Moldova. In 1995 the Parliament adopted the “Law on the Status of Judges”. It provided for, inter alia, the right of judges to an improvement of their housing conditions.
In 1996 the applicant requested the Cahul municipality to allocate him a bigger apartment or to give him a grant for building a house (an option which was also prescribed by the law of 1995). The municipality partially complied with his request and allocated him a plot of land for the building of a house.
Since it refused to give him a grant for building the house, the applicant filed an action against the Cahul municipality, seeking the latter’s compliance with his request lodged in 1996.
In 1998 Parliament suspended the application of the ‘housing improvement’ provision of the 1995 law and in May 1999 that suspension was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. The court proceedings brought by the applicant had been suspended during that time.
On 23 August 2001 the Cahul District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Cahul municipality to award him 173,176 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 14,589.63 euros (EUR) at the time). The municipality appealed.
On 21 March 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court partly upheld the appeal and reduced the amount to MDL 139,497 (the equivalent of EUR 11,745.93 at the time). The municipality lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 27 June 2002. The judgment thus became final and enforceable.
On 3 September and 29 October 2002 the applicant requested the enforcement of the judgment in his favour. However, it has never been enforced.
On 11 March 2003 the Deputy Prosecutor General filed with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the above-mentioned judgment.
On 9 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed the final judgment in favour of the applicant and adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim entirely.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the quashing by the Supreme Court of the final judgment of 27 June 2002 as a result of the Deputy Prosecutor General’s request for annulment.
2. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case and, in particular, the non-enforcement of the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 27 June 2002.
3. He further submitted that his rights under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention had been violated because he had not been present during the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice.
THE LAW
On 27 April 2007 the Government informed the Court that on the same date the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement. They submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement according to which the Government had undertaken to pay him, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, MDL 75,000 (EUR 4,437) in respect of any damage suffered by the applicant. The Government requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
On 27 June 2007 the applicant also informed the Court that the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement along the above-mentioned lines and that he wished to discontinue the examination of the application.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy