FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 52528/99
by Constantin SVETENCO and Maria JELIMALAI
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2003 as a Chamber composed of
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsE. Palm,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 April 1999 and registered on 9 November 1999,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Constantin Svetenco and Mrs Maria Jelimalai, are Moldovan nationals, born in 1932 and 1934, respectively, and living in Bălţi, Moldova. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Pârlog, Ministry of Justice.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1949 the house owned by the applicants’ parents was confiscated by the communist regime.
In 1996 the applicants, as successors in title to the original owners, applied to the Bălţi Municipal Council for the return of the confiscated house.
On 22 February 1996 the Bălţi Municipal Council adopted the decision ordering that the house be restored to the applicants. The Municipal Council specified in its decision that the house was to be restored after the eviction of the last of the four families living in the house.
In 1996 the applicants lodged with the Bălţi District Court an action by which they sought to declare null and void the contracts of sale by which the tenants had purchased the flats composing the house and the ownership titles issued to them. On 8 July 1996 the District Court declared null and void the contracts of sale to the tenants and the ownership titles issued to them in this respect.
In 1996 the applicants lodged with the Bălţi District Court an action by which they sought an order that the tenants of the house be evicted. On 9 December 1996 the District Court ordered the eviction of the tenants and indicated that the State was responsible for providing alternative accommodation. On 4 July 1997 the District Court sent to the Municipal Council the enforcement warrant for the judgment of 9 December 1996.
In 1998 the applicants complained again about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 December 1996 to the District Court. By letter of 30 October 1999, a judge of the District Court informed the applicants that the Bălţi Municipal Council lacked the funds for the construction of apartment-buildings, had no available alternative accommodation for the tenants, and therefore could not enforce the judgment of 9 December 1996, prior to acquiring appropriate funding or disposing of vacated premises.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that by non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 December 1996, their right to have their civil rights determined by a court was violated. They also complain that because of the non-enforcement of the above judgment, they were unable to enjoy their possessions, and thus their right to protection of property was violated. The applicants rely on Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
By letter dated 25 September 2001 the Government informed the Court that, due to the impossibility of evicting the tenants from the restored house, the Bălţi Municipal Council had been ready to pay the applicants the market value of the restored house. In reply, by letter dated 31 October 2001 the applicants informed the Court that they accepted the Government’s offer of 52 000 Moldavian lei in full and final settlement of their claim.
On 17 February 2003 the applicants informed the Court that the Bălţi Municipal Council had paid them the market value of the house and that, subsequently, they did not wish to pursue the application. In their letter to the Court of 12 March 2003, the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.
The Court notes that the parties have reached an agreement and that the applicants no longer wish to pursue their application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 Protocol which require that the examination of the application be continued. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy