FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38598/07
by CARD BOX PRODUCTION S.R.L.
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 August 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
and Fatoş Aracı, ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 August 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Card Box Production S.R.L., is a private company registered in Moldova. It was represented before the Court by Mr A. Chiriac, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant company instituted court proceedings against the company “Vinuri-Ialoveni” (hereinafter “V.”), claiming payment of a debt from the latter, as well as compensation for pecuniary damage.
By a judgment of 23 November 2006 which became final on 15 January 2007 the Chişinău Economic District Court ordered V. to pay the applicant company the debt, amounting to 167,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (9,824 euros (EUR)), MDL 19,283 (EUR 1,134) in compensation for pecuniary damage and MDL 5,000 (EUR 294) for costs and expenses.
The court ordered the immediate enforcement of the judgment.
On 30 January 2007 and 28 May 2007 the applicant company requested the Enforcement Office to take measures in order to enforce the final judgment in its favour, but received no reply.
On an unspecified date the judgment was partially enforced.
On 1 June 2009 the company was paid the remainder of the debt (MDL 113,131). Thus, the final judgment in its favour was fully enforced.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its right of access to court was violated by the failure to fully enforce the final judgment in its favour.
2.  The applicant company also complained that the failure to fully enforce the final judgment in its favour had violated its right to protection of property, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 5 June 2009 the Court received from the Government a friendly-settlement agreement reached with the applicant’s representative. According to that agreement:
“1. [...] the Government of Moldova undertake to pay the company Card Box Productions S.R.L. the sum of 6,010 (six thousand and ten) euros [...] in pecuniary damage, 1,000 (one thousand) euros in non-pecuniary damage and 1,400 (one thousand four hundred) euros for costs and expenses. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
2. The arrangement mentioned above shall constitute the final settlement of the case.
3. The applicant company shall declare all its claims satisfied and shall withdraw application no.38598/07, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and notified to the Government on 9 December 2008.
4. The applicant company declares that it waives any further claims against the Government of Moldova in respect of facts giving rise to this application, including any claims of non-pecuniary or pecuniary nature, or any other damage which could result from the circumstances of the present case.
5. The parties shall inform the European Court of the existence of the present agreement and shall request the case to be struck out from the list of cases.”
The friendly-settlement agreement was signed by the applicant’s representative and the Government and dated 4 June 2009.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Fatoş Aracı	Nicolas Bratza 
	Deputy Registrar	President