European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dumitru CROITORU v Moldova - 29755/07 [2010] ECHR 757 (18 May 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/757.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 757

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 29755/07
by Dumitru CROITORU
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 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 15 June 2007,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 April 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dumitru Croitoru, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1963 and lives in Ghioltosu. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Stoian, a lawyer practising in Cahul. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.Grosu.

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

The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the Ministry”), instituted court proceedings against his former employer, seeking an order obliging the latter to pay him an allowance.

By a final judgment delivered on 20 November 1997 the Cantemir District Court ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant an allowance of 1,408 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 204 euros (EUR) at the time.

Despite attempts by the applicant to obtain the enforcement of the final judgment in his favour, it 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 final judgment in his favour.

The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 3 b) and c), without giving further details.

Finally, he complained in substance that the failure to enforce the final judgment in his favour had violated his right to protection of property, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The complaints covered by the unilateral declaration

By letter dated 7 April 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The Government acknowledged that there was an infringement of the applicant's rights guaranteed by the Convention on account of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 20 November 1997. They undertook to pay the applicant 2,500 euros. The payment would be effected within a period of 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 within that period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The applicant did not submit any comments on this matter.

The Court notes that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list in particular if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:

“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's unilateral declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, which can be considered reasonable in comparison with the Court's awards in similar cases (see Ungureanu v. Moldova, no. 27568/02, § 39, 6 September 2007), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the above-mentioned complaints and is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Accordingly this part of the application should be struck out of the list.

2. Other complaints

The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 3 b) and c), without giving further details. The Court recalls that Article 6 § 3 applies only to proceedings involving a criminal charge, which was not the applicant's case. Accordingly, these complaints are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously:

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in respect of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President