CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s5FA800CC { width:1.69pt; display:inline-block } .s64914E7B { width:15.3pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sE5B8ADA1 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7F2B891E { width:167.46pt; display:inline-block } .sCAE00017 { width:190.66pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 57507/00 by Maria GUŢAN against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   March   2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   M. Pellonpää , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and     Mrs     F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 1999, 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, Mrs Maria Guţan, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1926 and lives in Orhei, Moldova. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Pârlog, Ministry of Justice. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1996 the applicant lodged with the Orhei District Court an action by which she sought the restitution of the house confiscated from her parents, following their deportation to Siberia in 1949. The applicant also requested to declare as null the administrative decisions by which ownership of the house had been granted to its tenants and a compensation had been paid to her for the property confiscated from her parents, and to evict the tenants from the house. On 13 June 1997 the District Court ordered the return to the applicant of the house and declared null and void the contested administrative decisions. The court also ordered the eviction of tenants from the house and indicated that the State was responsible for providing alternative accommodation. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Court in its final judgment of 14   April   1998. On an unspecified date in 1997, a judge of the District Court issued the enforcement warrant for the judgment of 13 June 1997. On 25 August 1997 the applicant submitted to the District Court her first request to enforce the judgment. However, the bailiffs and the local authorities concerned failed to enforce the judgment. In 1999 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 13 June 1997 to the Ministry of Justice. On 18 June 1999 the Ministry sent a letter to the President of the Orhei District Court requesting to enforce the judgment of 13 June 1997. On 29   June   1999 a judge of the District Court sent a letter to the Orhei Municipal Council requesting to enforce the judgment of 13 June 1997 by 1 st   August   1999. In a letter of 30 June 1999, the President of the Orhei District Court informed the applicant and the Ministry of Justice that the Municipal Council had stated that due to the lack of funds, the construction of the apartment-buildings had been suspended and that it had no available alternative accommodation for persons evicted from the houses restituted to their former owners.   COMPLAINTS The applicants complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that by non-enforcement of the judgment of 13 June 1997 her right of having her civil rights determined by a court was violated. She also complains that because of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 13 June 1997 she was unable to enjoy her possessions and thus her right to protection of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was violated. THE LAW By letter dated 30 August 2001 the Government informed the Court that the local State enterprise managing the housing had been ready to offer accommodation for the persons evicted from the house restored to the applicant. On 14 June 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the house had been subject to restitution proceedings, that she had taken possession of this property on 11 June 2002 and that, subsequently, she did not wish to pursue the application. In their letter to the Court of 16 July 2002, the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. The Court finds that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue her application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocol which require the examination of the application be continued. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Matti Pellonpää       Deputy Registrar   President