AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
by Vasile TURCHIN
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Vasile Turchin, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1929 and lives in Edineţ. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Marcu, a lawyer practising in Edineţ. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s family were the victims of Soviet State repression, during which they were deported from Moldova and their property was confiscated.
On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted an Act “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime” (the 1992 Act) (Law no. 1225-XII). The Act enabled the victims of Soviet repression to reclaim their confiscated or nationalised property.
On the basis of the 1992 Act, the Edineţ prosecutor initiated court proceedings in the interest of the applicant and his brother, asking for compensation. On 21 December 2006 the Bălţi Court of Appeal allowed the claim and ordered the Edineţ regional Finance Department to pay the applicant and his brother 143,236 Moldovan lei (MDL) (8,415 euros). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable fifteen days later.
The applicant submitted an enforcement warrant on 21 February 2007 asking for the judgment to be enforced. He was informed that the Edineţ regional budget did not provide for the payment of the relevant compensation and that a request had been made to the Government to allocate resources for the purpose of paying compensation to the applicant and a number of other persons in possession of similar court orders.
On 26 November 2007 the Government transferred MDL 1,368,500 to the Edineţ regional budget. On 17 December 2007 the applicant received MDL 143,236, thus, enforcing the final judgment in his favour.
The applicant did not inform the Court that the judgment in his favour had been enforced and it was only through the Government’s observations that the Court learned about the enforcement of the judgment.
The applicant complained that the judgment of 21 December 2006 had been enforced late. He invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, which, so far as relevant, provide as follows:
Article 6 § 1:
“1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... within a reasonable time.”
Article 1 of Protocol No.1:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”
The Government submitted that, because the judgment had already been enforced, the applicant could not claim to be a victim. In the Government’s opinion the enforcement proceedings should be considered as having lasted from 21 February to 17 December 2007.
The applicant confirmed that the judgment of 21 December 2006 had been enforced on 17 December 2007, on which date he had signed a receipt in respect of MDL 143,236.
The Court notes that the judgment in favour of the applicant became enforceable on 5 January 2007 and was enforced on 17 December 2007, that is eleven months and eleven days after the judgment had become enforceable. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 37, 23 October 2003) and to the fact that the Edineţ regional Finance Department fully complied with the judgment within a relatively short period, the Court finds that it was enforced within a “reasonable time”. There being, in addition, no factors in the present case which could be considered to have required special diligence and speedier enforcement (see, a contrario, Ungureanu v. Moldova, no. 27568/02, 6 September 2007), the Court finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention or of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Osoian v. Moldova (dec.), no. 31413/03, 28 February 2006).
Accordingly, the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President