CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 octobre 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 } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sCD43AF66 { width:217.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2454/04 by Tudor POPA against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 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 deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tudor Popa, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr   V.   Iordachi, acting on behalf of the “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a non-governmental organisation based in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. In 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), according to which he paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity. The applicant was entitled to receive his annuity of 400 Moldovan lei (MDL ) (approximately 90 United Stated dollars (USD) as of 1 August 1996) as of 31 July 1999; however ASITO refused to pay invoking a change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova and calling for the cancellation of the contract. On an unspecified date in 2001, the applicant brought a civil action against ASITO, seeking the payment of the pension to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract. On 5 December 2001, the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay the pension due and to resume the execution of the contract. ASITO appealed against this judgment. On 17 April 2002, the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal arguing that the contract of 1994 was legal and valid and therefore it had to be upheld by the parties. ASITO did not appeal. The judgment became final and enforceable. On an unspecified date the Prosecutor General lodged an “appeal in the interest of the law” with the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Prosecutor General, the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding such contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all the courts. On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former. It also ruled that its judgment could not affect the already existing judgments and that it could not be used against the parties to those proceedings. On an unspecified date subsequent to that of the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court, ASITO brought an action against the applicant seeking the cancellation of the contract concluded in 1994. On 12 February 2003 the Ciocana District Court found in favour of ASITO and cancelled the contract of 1994. It relied on the same arguments set out by the Plenary Supreme Court in its judgment of 11 March 2002. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 16 April 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Court of Appeal. On 10 June 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in cassation. The judgment became final. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a revision request against the judgments of 12 February 2003, 16 April 2003 and 10 June 2003. On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the revision request, quashed the above judgments and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. The re-opened proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 9 June 2005 which found in favour of the applicant and dismissed ASITO’s action for cancellation of the contract of 1994. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained of the breach of the principle of legal certainty provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. He argued that the validity of his pension contract had been confirmed by a final judgment in his favour; however it had been called into question later, after the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 11 March 2002, when the courts upheld ASITO’s action against him and ordered the cancellation of the contract. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or (b)     the matter has been resolved...” Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as far as relevant, reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention....” On 8 September 2007 the applicant informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 9 June 2005. Since the situation had been remedied by that judgment, he requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application since the matter before it has been resolved. 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 Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the 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