CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 septembre 2004

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; 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 } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACB13F9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s38F895A6 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 42308/02 by Nicolae FRUNZE against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   D. Spielmann, judges , and   Mr   M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nicolae Frunze, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Chisinau. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was dismissed from work in 1997 and was allegedly not issued a document which is required whenever a person applies for new employment. According to Moldovan law, the employer's failure to issue the relevant document entails an obligation to pay that person's salary for the entire period of the resulting unemployment. One year after dismissal he requested that his former employer, a State agency, issue the relevant document, pay his salary for that year, as well as compensate for the moral damage suffered. When the employer refused to pay, the applicant initiated court proceedings. Three levels of jurisdiction found in his favour and awarded him part of the amount claimed. However, the Prosecutor General filed a request for annulment of all the previous judgments and asking that the applicant's claim be rejected. On 20 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General's request for annulment and quashed all the previous judgments. It ordered a full re-hearing of the case. On 31 October 2001 the Rîşcani District Court re-heard the case and rejected the applicant's claims. On 12 March 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment. On 2 July 2002 the Court of Appeal also upheld that judgment, rejecting the applicant's claims as unfounded because he refused to receive the document in spite of numerous offers to provide it by the employer. B.     Relevant domestic law The following are relevant extracts from the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 abrogated on 12 June 2003. According to Article 332 the Prosecutor General and his deputies upon request from a party to the proceedings could file a request for annulment with the Supreme Court of Justice against any final decision of the domestic courts. Article 333 stipulated the cases when a request for annulment could be filed against a final judgment. These cases were: - when the final judgment lacked a legal basis or had been delivered in breach of the law or the law was wrongly applied; - when the issuing court had exceeded its jurisdiction; - when offences had been committed by judges in connection with the final decision. Article 334 provided that there was no time limit for filing a request for annulment. According to Article 335 the request for annulment had to be made in written form and had to contain the reasons provided in Article 333. The request for annulment had to be filed in as many copies as there were participants in the proceedings. The Prosecutor General or his deputies could withdraw the request for annulment at any time before the closure of pleadings in the case by prior notice stating the reasons for the withdrawal. In this case, the parties to the proceedings could require the continuation of the trial. Article 335/1 stated that the proceedings related to the request for annulment should be governed by the rules set forth in Chapter 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the presence of the Prosecutor General was compulsory. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol 1 because of the annulment of a final judgment in his favour. 2.     He also argues that Article 6 § 1 was violated because the courts in the post-annulment proceedings wrongly interpreted the evidence, incorrectly applied the law and were generally not impartial and objective. 3.     He further contends that his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol   1 were breached as a result of the post-annulment proceedings. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains about the annulment of a final judgment in his favour further to a request made by the Prosecutor General. He relies on Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, provide as follows: Article 6 § 1: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...”. 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...” The Court recalls that “the quashing of a final judgment is an instantaneous act, which does not create a continuing situation, even if it entails a re-opening of the proceedings” (see Sardin v. Russia (dec.), no.   69582/01, 12   February 2004). The quashing of the final judgment in this case took place on 20 June 2001. The six-month period started running on both complaints from that date while this application was introduced on 12   November 2002, some 17 months later. The complaint had been introduced therefore outside the time-limit set down by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 2.     The Court has examined the remainder of the applicant's complaints under these Articles. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of 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.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President