British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
DELIUCHIN v. MOLDOVA - 14925/03 [2007] ECHR 844 (23 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/844.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 844
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
DELIUCHIN v. MOLDOVA
(Application
no. 14925/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
October 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Deliuchin v. Moldova,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K.
Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L.
Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 14925/03) against the Republic
of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Ms Teodora Deliuchin (“the
applicant”), on 17 December 2002. The applicant was represented
by Mr V. Nagacevschi, from “Lawyers for Human
Rights”, a non-governmental organisation based in Chişinău.
The
Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented
by their Agent at the time, Mr V. Pârlog.
The
applicant complained that
the failure to enforce the final judgment of 22 August 2002 in
her favour had violated her right to have her civil rights determined
by a court within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by Article 6 of
the Convention, and her right to peaceful enjoyment of her
possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention.
The
application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court. On
15 February 2006 the President of that Section decided to
communicate the application to the Government. Under the provisions
of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine
the merits of the application at the same time
as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chişinău.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
In
1997 a criminal investigation was initiated in respect of the
applicant. She was detained in the remand centre of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs between 18 June and
15 July 1998. She was again detained between 30 September
and 31 October 1998 in the remand centre of the Ministry of
Justice. The applicant allegedly complained to the prison
authorities about the harsh conditions of detention in the remand
centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
By
its final judgment of 20 May 1999 the Court of Appeal acquitted her
of all the charges against her.
The
applicant initiated civil proceedings claiming damages for unlawful
detention and related acts on the part of the prosecution and the
courts.
On
26 December 2001 the Ciocana District Court found in her favour and
awarded her 12,258 Moldovan lei (MDL, equal to 1,065 euros (EUR) at
the time) in compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered and
MDL 100,000 (EUR 8,688) for non-pecuniary damage.
On
19 March 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that
judgment.
On
22 August 2002 the Court of Appeal partly quashed that judgment,
reducing the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 10,000
(EUR 752). It upheld the award of compensation for the pecuniary
damage suffered. That judgment was final and enforceable.
The Prosecutor General requested the annulment of all
previous judgments and the reduction of the award for non-pecuniary
damage, as part of an extraordinary procedure. On 19 March 2003 the
Supreme Court of Justice rejected that request.
On 21 November 2003 the Ministry of Finance
transferred the amount corresponding to the compensation due to the
Decisions Enforcement Department. According to that department, the
applicant received the money on 26 February 2004. The applicant had
submitted the enforcement warrant to the department on 23 October
2002.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
The
relevant domestic law has been set out in Prodan v. Moldova
(no. 49806/99, ECHR 2004 III (extracts)).
THE LAW
The
applicant complained that the failure to enforce the final judgment
of 22 August 2002 had violated her rights as guaranteed by Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
The
relevant part of Article 6 reads as follows:
“1. In the determination of his civil rights
and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair hearing ... within
a reasonable time by a tribunal ....”
She
also complained that the failure to enforce the judgment had also
violated her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention. That Article reads as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties.”
I. ADMISSIBILITY
A. The complaints under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the
Convention
In
her initial application, the applicant also submitted complaints
under Articles 3, 6 (access to justice regarding her complaint under
Article 3), 8 and 13 of the Convention. However, in her observations
on the admissibility and merits she asked the Court not to proceed
with the examination of these complaints. The Court finds no reason
to examine them.
B. The Government's preliminary objection
The
Government submitted that since the award made on 22 August 2002 in
the applicant's favour had been paid on 21 November 2003 the
applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of her
rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
to the Convention.
The
applicant disagreed, stating that she retained her victim status.
The
Court notes that it has already dismissed a similar objection raised
by the respondent Government because “the payment ... did not
involve any acknowledgement of the violations alleged” (see,
for example, Prodan, cited above, § 47). Moreover, no
compensation for delayed enforcement was paid.
In
these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may claim
to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The
Court considers that the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1
and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention raise
questions of law which are sufficiently serious that their
determination should depend on an examination of the merits, and no
other grounds for declaring them inadmissible have been established.
The Court therefore declares these complaints admissible. In
accordance with its decision to apply Article 29 § 3
of the Convention (see paragraph 4 above), the Court will immediately
consider the merits of these complaints.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND OF ARTICLE
1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment of 22
August 2002 in her favour had violated her rights under Article 6 §
1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The
Government submitted that the applicant's rights had not been
violated in view of the fact that she had received the entire amount
awarded to her within a reasonable time. Moreover, a major part of
the delay in enforcing the judgment was due to the annulment
proceedings initiated by the Prosecutor General (see paragraph 13
above).
The
Court reiterates that “a person who
has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of
successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement
proceedings in order to have it executed (see Koltsov v. Russia,
no. 41304/02, § 16, 24 February 2005; Petrushko
v. Russia, no. 36494/02, § 18, 24 February
2005; and Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19,
27 May 2004). It therefore concludes that the enforcement proceedings
should have begun immediately after the judgment became final on
22 August 2002.
The
Court also considers that the date on which the applicant received
the compensation due is the only relevant date for determining the
end of the enforcement proceedings, and not any previous date on
which one State authority transferred funds to another for the
purpose o enforcement. It therefore considers that the judgment of 22
August 2002 was enforced on 26 February 2004 (see paragraph 14
above).
The
judgment therefore remained unenforced for approximately eighteen
months. The Court recalls that it has found violations of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in numerous cases concerning delays
in enforcing final judgments (see, among other authorities, Prodan,
cited above, and Luntre and Others v. Moldova, nos. 2916/02,
21960/02, 21951/02, 21941/02, 21933/02, 20491/02, 2676/02, 23594/02,
21956/02, 21953/02, 21943/02, 21947/02 and 21945/02, 15 June 2004).
Having
examined the material submitted to it, the Court notes that the file
does not contain any element which would allow it to reach a
different conclusion in the present case. In particular, it finds
irrelevant, for the purposes of determining the reasonableness of the
length of the enforcement proceedings, the fact that an extraordinary
remedy was being pursued to challenge the final judgment. Such
remedies, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances which do not
appear to apply to the present case, are in themselves contrary to
the Convention (see Brumărescu v. Romania [GC],
no. 28342/95, ECHR 1999 VII, and Roşca v.
Moldova, no. 6267/02, 22 March 2005).
Accordingly,
the Court finds, for the reasons given in the cases cited above, that
the failure to enforce the judgment of 22 August 2002 within a
reasonable time constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
The
applicant claimed EUR 303 for pecuniary damage, relying on the base
rates of the National Bank of Moldova.
The
Government contested these calculations and considered that it had
not been proved that the applicant had suffered pecuniary damage.
The
Court considers that the applicant suffered pecuniary damage as a
result of the failure to enforce the judgment of 11 April 2001 within
a reasonable time. On the basis of the materials in the file, the
Court accepts the applicant's claim in full.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. She
referred to her advanced age (for Moldova) and to her suffering
resulting from the belated enforcement of the final judgment in her
favour.
The
Government considered that the amount claimed was excessive,
unsubstantiated and lacked a causal link with the alleged violation.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have been caused a certain
amount of stress and frustration as a result of the non-enforcement
of the judgment in her favour within a reasonable time, in particular
given the nature of the award, which provided compensation for
unlawful detention. However, the amount claimed is excessive. Ruling
on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 800
for non-pecuniary damage.
C. Costs and expenses
The
applicant claimed EUR 300 for costs and expenses. Her lawyer
expressly reduced his fees to account for the complaints withdrawn by
the applicant.
The
Government considered that the amount claimed was excessive and had
not actually been incurred.
Having
regard to the materials in the file and to its case-law on the matter
at issue, the Court accepts this claim in full.
D. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the application admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of
the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 303 (three
hundred and three euros) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 800
(eight hundred euros) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 (three
hundred euros) for costs and expenses, to be converted into the
national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement, simple interest shall be payable on the
above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
