CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s74498A23 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF39B71E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDE095A02 { width:32.94pt; display:inline-block } .s83247196 { width:152.29pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 31413/03 by Lilian OSOIAN against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges , and Mrs F. Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 July 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, 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, Mr Lilian Osoian, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1973 and lives in Chişinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 12 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action against the Ministry of Internal Affairs (the Ministry) with the Centru District Court, seeking compensation for damage to his health during his service. On 11 February 2003 the Centru District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry to pay him 13,965 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 910.6 euros (EUR) as of 11 February 2003). The Ministry did not appeal and after fifteen days the judgment became final and enforceable. On 3 June 2003 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour to a bailiff. On 17 June 2003 the latter informed the applicant, inter alia , that the enforcement warrant had been sent to the Ministry on 13 March 2003 and it could not be enforced due to lack of money. On 30 September 2003 the applicant brought a new action against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, seeking compensation for inflation for the period of non-enforcement. During the proceedings, on 5 December 2003, the Ministry complied with the judgment of 11 February 2003 and paid the applicant MDL 13,965. On 19 December 2003 the Centru District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It found, inter alia , that since the judgment in his favour had been enforced, the State could not be made subject to an additional obligation to pay him compensation. He appealed against it. On 17 March 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. He did not lodge an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law was set out in Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova , nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01, §   12, 15 June 2004. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court was violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 11 February 2003. The applicant alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 11   February   2003 violated his right to the protection of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment until December   2003 caused him additional monetary loss, which was not awarded by the domestic courts. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained about the failure to enforce the judgment of 11 February 2003. He 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 applicant to the amount of MDL 13,965. They argued that since the judgment had been enforced, the applicant could not pretend to be a victim. The applicant complained, inter alia , that during the period of non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour he had accumulated debts. The Court notes that the Centru District Court ruled in favour of the applicant on 11 February 2003 and that the judgment became final and enforceable after fifteen days. The Ministry of Internal Affairs received the enforcement warrant within one month from the date of the judgment and complied with it on 5 December 2003 that is nine months later. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, e.g., Timofeyev v. Russia , no.   58263/00, §   37, 23 October 2003) and to the fact that the judgment was fully executed within a relatively short period, the Court finds that it was enforced within a “reasonable time” and that there was no interference with the applicant’s property rights in this respect. 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 complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out under Article 6 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004). Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-   founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. 2. As to the applicant’s complaints about a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of not being awarded his compensation for inflation, it is noted that the applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice against the judgment of 17 March 2004. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and Declares the application inadmissible.   Françoise Elens-Passos   N icolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President