CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 mars 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9D5ED0F7 { width:218.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18678/04 by Galina ROPOTAN against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2004, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Galina Ropotan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1950 and lives in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vitalie Pârlog. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was an employee of the Customs Department (“the Department”). On 16   February   2002 she requested the Department to calculate and pay her the pension to which she was entitled in accordance with the law. Having been refused, on an unspecified date in 2002 she filed an action against the Department. By a judgment of 2   September   2002 the Court of Appeal upheld her action and ordered the Department to calculate and pay her the pension. The Department did not appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable. On the same date the Court of Appeal issued an enforcement warrant. The judgment has not yet been enforced. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 2 September 2002. 2. She also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 2   September 2002 had violated her right to property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 3. The applicant also submitted that there had been a breach of her rights under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention because of the failure to enforce the final judgment in her favour. THE LAW On 9 March 2005 the Court received the Government’s observations on the case. On 6 April 2005 the Court transmitted the observations to the applicant, who was invited to submit her written comments by 18   May   2005. Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 8   December   2005 the Court pointed out to the applicant that the deadline for submitting comments had expired and warned her that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list. The applicant received that letter but did not reply. In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols which require the continuation of the examination of the application. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the Court’s list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President