European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petru SAVCENCO v Moldova - 16999/07 [2011] ECHR 1472 (6 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1472.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1472

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

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 16999/07
by Petru SAVCENCO
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2007,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 April 2011 and the applicant’s acceptance of its terms,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Petru Savcenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Răciula. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Iordachi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.

On 11 February 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings concerning ownership of a tractor. By a final judgment of 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s claims.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings in question. Under the same provision, he complained that the judgments lacked reasons and that the domestic courts had failed to take into consideration an expert report submitted on his behalf. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings.

On 12 January 2009 the Court decided to communicate to the Government the complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

By letter dated 13 April 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention on account of excessive length of the proceedings in question. They also undertook to pay the applicant 1,200 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. 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 Convention. 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.

On 6 June 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations and invited the Court to proceed with the examination of the Government’s request and to strike the case out of its list of cases.

A. Complaint concerning excessive length of proceedings

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties concerning this part of the application. 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 view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.

B. Other complaints

In so far as the remainder of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 of the Convention and the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are concerned, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in respect of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 concerning excessive length of proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Egbert Myjer
Deputy Registrar President