European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 19261/05
by Ion NEDELCOV
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, 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 FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ion Nedelcov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1933 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. 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.

The applicant was a member of a gardening association and, on account of his membership, occupied a parcel of land on which he cultivated fruit and vegetables for the needs of his family.

On an unspecified date he was excluded from the association on grounds which are not known to the Court. According to the statute of the association, disputes between the association and its members were to be resolved by the Chişinău Municipal Council.

The applicant lodged an application with the Chişinău Municipal Council and challenged the decision of the association; however, his application was rejected on procedural grounds.

The applicant contested the Municipal Council’s decision and on 19 May 2004 obtained a final judgment ordering the Municipal Council to examine his application on the merits. An enforcement warrant was issued on 1 June 2004 and the judgment was enforced on 27 April 2005, when the Chişinău Municipal Council examined the applicant’s application on the merits and adopted a decision in his favour.

The applicant received the Municipal Council’s decision by mail on 19 September 2005.

The applicant did not inform the Court about the enforcement of the judgment in his favour and it was only through the Government’s observations that the Court learned about the enforcement of the judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated by the late enforcement of the judgment of 19 May 2004.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the late enforcement of the judgment of 19 May 2004. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 the relevant of which provides 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.”

The Government submitted that since the judgment had been enforced before the applicant had lodged his application, he could not claim to be a victim.

The applicant confirmed that the judgment of 19 May 2004 had been enforced on 27 April 2005, but argued that he only found out about that on 19 September 2005, when he received a letter from the Municipal Council. In his opinion the enforcement proceedings should be considered as having lasted between 19 May 2004 and 19 September 2005.

The Court notes that the judgment in favour of the applicant became enforceable on 1 June 2004 and was enforced on 27 April 2005, that is less than eleven months 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 Chişinău Municipal Council fully complied with the judgment within a relatively short period, the Court finds that it was enforced within a “reasonable time”. The fact that the applicant failed to inquire about the enforcement proceedings either by checking the Official Gazette of the Municipal Council or by requesting information directly from the Municipal Council between April and September 2005 cannot be imputed to the State authorities responsible for the enforcement of court judgments. There being, in addition, no factors in the present case which could be considered to have required special diligence and speedier enforcement, the Court finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (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.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President