European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2275/05
by Mihail JUTOV
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 November 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mihail Jutov, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Minsk. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 17 September 1991 the applicant’s daughter died as a result of a traffic accident. The tractor which had run over his daughter belonged to a kolkhoz (collective farm) and the applicant brought an action against the latter, seeking reimbursement of the expenses for her funeral.

By a final judgment of 17 May 1994 the Şoldăneşti District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 3,876.45 Moldovan lei (MDL) (940 euros (EUR) at the time).

The applicant complained on several occasions to the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 17 May 1994.

On 20 January 1999 the Ministry informed the applicant that on 26 August 1994 a bailiff had received the enforcement warrant. On 5 September 1994 the bank account of the defendant was seized, but the money could not be transferred to Belarus because in 1995-1996 Belarus did not accept Moldovan currency. He was also informed that the bailiff in charge of the enforcement of the judgment in his favour had been dismissed on 9 July 1998.

On 27 January 2001 the Ministry informed the applicant that although the kolkhoz had been liquidated, several buildings had been seized in order to be auctioned with a view to enforcing the judgment.

The judgment of 17 May 1994 has not been enforced to date.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 17 May 1994.

The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State had been responsible for the death of his daughter.

THE LAW

By letter dated 27 January 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 20 March 2007.

By letter dated 8 August 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 20 March 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. On 8 October 2008 the letter was returned with the stamp of the post office: “unclaimed”.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. Accordingly, 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.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President