European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 12224/05
by Vasile and Dumitru COMANDARI
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 25 March 2005,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Vasile Comandari and Dumitru Comandari, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1974 and 1978 respectively and live in Bălţi. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.

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

Following the unlawful criminal prosecution of the applicants, they instituted civil proceedings against the Government and claimed non-pecuniary compensation.

By a final judgment of 21 September 2004 the Balti Court of Appeal ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay each of them 16,190 Moldovan lei. On 19 October 2004 the applicants formally requested the enforcement of that judgment and the money was paid to them on 14 September 2005.

The applicants did not inform the Court about the enforcement of the judgment in their favour, even in their post-communication correspondence. It was only through the Government’s observations that the Court learned about the enforcement of the judgment in September 2005.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that their right of access to court had been violated by the late enforcement of the judgment of 21 September 2004.

THE LAW

The applicants complained about the late enforcement of the judgment of 21 September 2004. They invoked Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. The relevant Articles provide, in so far as relevant, 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 1:

 “1.  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...”

In their observations, the Government submitted a copy of a payment order in favour of the applicants for the amount indicated in the judgment of 21 September 2004. They argued that since the judgment had been enforced, the applicants could not claim to be victims.

The applicants confirmed that the money had been paid to them, but argued that it had not been paid within a reasonable time.

The Court notes that the judgment in favour of the applicants became enforceable on 19 October 2004 and was enforced on 14 September 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 Ministry of Finance 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, the Court finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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