CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 avril 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3755/05 by Anatolie CARAMAN against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Stanislav Pavlovschi,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 December 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 regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Anatolie Caraman, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1958 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău and a member of the non-governmental organisation “Lawyers for Human Rights”. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 4 June 2003 the Grigoriopol District Court ordered the Chişinău municipality to allocate accommodation to the applicant, in accordance with legal requirements. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final fifteen days later. On 16 July 2003 the applicant asked for the judgment to be enforced. On 14 November 2003 the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant of difficulties in enforcing the judgment, given that many other beneficiaries of similar judgments were waiting to be allocated accommodation and that the municipality lacked the resources to build new accommodation. On 1 September 2003 the applicant asked a court to award him the monetary equivalent of an apartment (20,000 United States dollars (USD)) in lieu of allocating him accommodation, as well as damages. On 6 September 2004 the Grigoriopol District Court granted the applicant’s request and awarded him USD 29,000. The court ordered the municipality to pay court fees of 10,440 Moldovan lei (MDL) (708 euros (EUR)). On 7 December 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s judgment and refused the applicant’s request. It ordered the applicant to pay court fees of MDL 7,830 (EUR 466). The applicant appealed and relied on Prodan v. Moldova (no.   49806/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ III (extracts)) to argue that the municipality’s alleged lack of vacant accommodation could not be relied on as a reason for not enforcing the final judgment in his favour. The applicant also asked for a court fee waiver, stating that he could not afford to pay the court fees (approximately EUR 300) and attached evidence to show that he was a pensioner with a State pension of MDL 1,519 (EUR 90) and had a wife and child to support. On 28 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice informed the applicant that his appeal on points of law could not be examined as he had not paid court fees. The applicant re-submitted his appeal to the court, asking for a formal decision on his request for a court fee waiver, which had not been taken. On 10 January 2005 he was again informed that his appeal could not be examined for the same reasons as stated earlier. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to a court had been infringed by the failure to enforce the final judgment of 4 June 2003 in his favour. 2. The applicant also alleged that that failure to enforce had infringed his right to protection of property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 3. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention of a lack of effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. THE LAW On 14 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova offer to pay the sum of 2,000 (two thousand) euros to Mr   Anatolie Caraman with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the Government of Moldova undertake to ensure the urgent enforcement of the judgment of 4 June 2003 in favour of Mr Caraman. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 22 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “I, V. Nagacevschi, the applicant’s representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova are prepared to pay the sum of 2,000 (two thousand) euros to Mr   Anatolie Caraman with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, the Government of Moldova undertake to ensure the urgent enforcement of the judgment of 4 June 2003 in favour of Mr Caraman. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President