FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 78077/01
by Eudochia UNGUREANU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2001,
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 letter from the applicant dated 2 June 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Eudochia Ungureanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1944 and lives in Sângerei. She was represented before the Court by Mr Ion Păduraru and Mr Nicolae Malanciuc, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vitalie Pârlog.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1947-1951 the Soviet authorities implemented their collectivisation policy and the applicant’s parents were deprived of their land.
In 1998 the applicant sought from the Sângerei Local Council the allocation of a plot of land, as provided for by the Land Code. Having been refused, in 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Local Council.
On 31 January 2000 the Sângerei District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Local Council to allocate her a plot of land and to issue a title of property over it. According to a certificate presented by the Sângerei Local Council during the proceedings, the size of the plot of land to which the applicant was entitled in accordance with its regulations, had been assessed as 1,51 ha. The judgment was not challenged and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
On 28 February 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgment of the Sângerei District Court of 31 January 2000.
On 28 March 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the final judgment of the Sângerei District Court of 31 January 2000. By the same judgment the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s action. The judgment became final.
Following the communication of the present case by the Court on 19 March 2004, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to apply to the Supreme Court of Justice for the revision of its judgment of 28 March 2001. On 22 October 2004, the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged a revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice in accordance with Article 449 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On 2 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s revision request, quashed all the previous judgments and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings.
On 8 June 2005 the Sângerei District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.
On 18 October 2005 the Bălţi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
By a final judgment of 25 January 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgments of the Bălţi Court of Appeal of 18 October 2005, of the Sângerei District Court of 18 October 2005 and of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2 March 2005. The Supreme Court also quashed its judgment of 28 March 2001 and discontinued the request for annulment proceedings. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of the Sângerei District Court of 31 January 2000. It found that there had been a breach of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of Convention and awarded her 500 euros (EUR)for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 450 for costs and expenses.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 28 March 2001, which set aside the final judgment of the Sângerei District Court of 31 January 2000, had violated the principle of legal certainty.
THE LAW
Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;”
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
2. When an applicant Contracting Party notifies the Registrar of its intention not to proceed with the case, the Chamber may strike the application out of the Court’s list under Article 37 of the Convention if the other Contracting Party or Parties concerned in the case agree to such discontinuance.”
On 28 March 2006 the Government informed the Court that on 25 January 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed its judgment of 28 March 2001, discontinued the request for annulment proceedings and upheld the judgment of the Sângerei District Court of 31 January 2000. They requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
On 2 June 2006 the applicant also informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings, which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 25 January 2006. Since the Supreme Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and had awarded her compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses, she requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court).
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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy