FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21379/04
by Nina STRECHIE
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 May 2004,
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 Government’s request to strike the case out of its list of cases and the text of a unilateral declaration made with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application,
Having regard to the applicant’s comments on the Government’s proposal for a unilateral declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nina Strechie, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1948 and lives in Drochia. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and her husband built a house, which was their common property. In 1981 they divorced and each obtained half of the house. On 17 August 1993 the applicant bought her former husband’s share in the house from him for 50,000 Soviet roubles.
On 21 September 1993 the husband died. On 2 December 1993 his sister (Z., who succeeded him) initiated court proceedings for the annulment of the contract for the sale of her brother’s share in the house to the applicant as he had no longer been able to understand the consequences of his actions when he sold it.
On 5 December 1994 the Drochia District Court found in favour of the applicant. On 18 January 1995 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case.
On 21 March 1996 the Drochia District Court annulled the contract of sale. On 8 May 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the first-instance court to adopt an additional decision regarding the costs and restitutio in integrum following the annulment of the contract.
On 10 June 1996 the Drochia District Court adopted an additional decision whereby restitutio in integrum was ordered: the applicant was to return her ex-husband’s share of the house to Z. and the latter was to return the value of that part of the house at the moment of enforcing the judgment.
On 17 July 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgments of 21 March 1996 and 10 June 1996. The judgments became final.
Due to Z.’s failure to pay the applicant the value of half of the house as ordered in those judgments, the applicant was given that part of the house instead during the enforcement proceedings on 6 October 1997. On 13 October 1997 the Drochia District Court confirmed that decision.
At Z.’s request, the Prosecutor General requested the annulment of all the court judgments adopted earlier. However, he later withdrew that request.
On 23 November 1999 Z. requested the re-opening of the proceedings and the amendment of the Drochia District Court’s judgments of 10 June 1996 and 13 October 1997.
On 7 December 1999 the President of the Drochia District Court sent Z.’s request to the Supreme Court of Justice with a view to designating the competent court. On 28 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice decided that the Drochia District Court was competent to examine the request.
On 15 March 2000 the Drochia District Court rejected Z.’s complaint as out of time. On 7 February 2001 the Bălţi Regional Court quashed that decision, the decision of 10 June 1996 and the decision of 13 October 1997. It ordered a re-examination by the first-instance court so that a new decision could be taken in respect of the price to be paid by Z. to the applicant.
On 23 May 2001 the Drochia District Court ordered restitutio in integrum and ordered the applicant to return her ex-husband’s share and Z. to pay the applicant 50,000 Soviet roubles. On 29 January 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision, which thus became final. It noted that in 1993 the amount paid by the applicant was much smaller than the real value of half of the house, which confirmed the unfairness of the contract.
At the applicant’s request, the Prosecutor General asked for the quashing of all the previously adopted judgments and a full re-examination of the case. On 25 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgments of 23 May 2001 and 29 January 2002 and ordered a re-examination of the case. The court found that the failure to indicate the exact equivalent of 50,000 Soviet roubles in current Moldovan currency made the enforcement of the judgment impossible.
On 23 January 2003 the Drochia District Court ordered restitutio in integrum and ordered the applicant to return her ex-husband’s share and Z. to pay her the equivalent of 50,000 Soviet roubles (50 Moldovan lei).
That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Regional Court on 20 May 2003 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 3 December 2003.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of excessive length of proceedings.
2. She also complained under the same Article of insufficient reasons given by the courts for their judgments.
3. She further complained under the same Article about the quashing of the final judgment of 10 June 1996.
4. She complained under the same Article of a violation of the principle of “equality of arms” because she had not been able to afford a lawyer and had not been able to defend her case properly.
5. The applicant complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention that she had had no effective remedy in respect of her complaint regarding the length of proceedings.
6. She finally complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the court judgments she had lost both her money and a part of the house.
THE LAW
A. Complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy
On 26 March 2007 the Government informed the Court that they wished to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the above issues raised by this part of 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]:
1. Recognise that as a result of the examination of the case lasting approximately 10 years there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention regarding the reasonable length of proceedings;
2. Recognise that the applicant did not have effective remedies at her disposal concerning her complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention;
3. [...] offer to pay 1,500 (one thousand five hundred) euros to Mrs Nina Strechie to compensate for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses.
This sum will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The applicant requested that the Court reject the Government’s proposal on the basis that the unilateral declaration was insufficient in terms of the level of compensation proposed, which she found inadequate having regard to the damage sustained.
In particular, the applicant submitted that as a result of the incorrect court judgments she had lost half of her house and that the sum offered by the Government clearly did not correspond to half the current value of a house.
The Court observes at the outset that the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case. It recalls that, according to Article 38 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential and that Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court further stipulates that no written or oral communication and no offer or concession made in the framework of an attempt to secure a friendly settlement may be referred to or relied on in contentious proceedings. However, the declaration was made by the Government on 26 March 2007 outside the framework of the friendly-settlement negotiations.
The Court recalls 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”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court also recalls that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention 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 will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005).
As to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that it has specified in a number of cases the nature and extent of the obligations which arise for the respondent State under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as regards the guarantees of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, among many others, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, ECHR 2006‑...; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000‑XI; Mazepa v. Moldova, no. 1115/02, 10 May 2007). Where the Court has found a breach of these Articles it has awarded just satisfaction, the amount of which has depended on the particular features of the case.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed (which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court’s awards in similar cases, taking into account that only six years and two months of the proceedings in the present case are within the Court’s competence ratione temporis, Moldova having ratified the Convention on 12 September 1997), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and also Haran v. Turkey (no. 25754/94, judgment of 26 March 2002).
In the light of all 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
B. Other complaints
The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant’s complaints and found no appearance of a violation of any of her rights protected by the Convention. In particular, it notes that the annulment of the final judgment on 25 September 2002 by the Supreme Court of Justice was initiated in the applicant’s interest and at her request. She could not, therefore, claim to be a victim of a violation of her rights as a result of the quashing. Moreover, the Court does not consider that the case was so complex as to require the applicant’s legal representation, and she was able to fully argue her case before the domestic courts, which adopted reasoned decisions. Finally, the Court has no reason to doubt the domestic courts’ finding that the sum paid by the applicant in 1993 was much smaller than the real price of the property and that the sum awarded to her represented the equivalent in Moldovan lei of the sum paid.
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.
C. Article 29 § 3 of the Convention
Having regard to the above considerations, the Court also concludes that Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and 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 in so far as it relates to the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning the length of the proceedings;
Decides to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy