CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 novembre 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 } .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 } .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 } .sC2C80E1C { width:180.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 2604/05 by Maxim BLIDARI against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Maxim Blidari, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău. 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. The applicant worked for a private company. On 22 March 2002 he was dismissed from his job. He instituted court proceedings asking for his reinstatement and the payment of salary arrears for the entire period of his involuntary absence from work. On 28 June 2002 the Ciocana District Court granted all his claims and issued a warrant of execution. There was no appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later. The applicant was dismissed again on 11 July 2002. On 7   November 2002 the Ciocana District Court ordered his reinstatement and the payment of salary arrears in the amount of 1,453 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 112 euros (EUR)). There was no appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later. The court issued a warrant of execution. On 15 November 2002 the employer reinstated the applicant but did not pay his salary arrears as it had been ordered to do by the court. On   3 April 2003 the applicant was dismissed once again. On 5   November 2003 the Ciocana District Court ordered his reinstatement and the payment of his salary arrears in the amount of MDL 2,848 (approximately EUR 180). There was no appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable 15   days later. On the same day the court issued a warrant of execution, which the applicant served on the company. On 24 October 2003 the applicant repeatedly requested the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) to execute the judgment of 7 November 2002. Since the company had failed to comply with the two court orders, on 17   December 2003 the applicant sent the Department all the correspondence with his employer regarding enforcement, with a request for it to ensure that the warrants issued on 7   November 2002 and on 5 November 2003 were executed. On   22 December 2003 the applicant was informed that his requests had been forwarded to the Department’s Ciocana branch for enforcement, with a time-limit set for 15 January 2004. According to the applicant, he was not informed of any further actions on the part of the Department. On 7   May 2004 he repeatedly asked the Department to enforce the two final judgments in his favour. He was informed that the Department’s Ciocana branch was responsible for enforcement and that the new time-limit had been set for 1   June 2004 to ensure the execution of the two warrants. On 14 June 2004 the Department informed him that the two warrants, which it had received on 4 December 2003, had been executed and the money transferred to its account on 3 June 2004. There was no mention of the issue of his reinstatement. The applicant was invited to the Department to pick up the money. Instead, he specified the bank account to which he wished the Department to transfer the money. According to the applicant, despite repeated requests to the Department, including letters of 12 and 14 July 2004, the money has not yet been transferred. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the failure to enforce final judgments in his favour.   2.     He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of the failure to enforce the judgments. THE LAW On   19 February 2007 the Court received the Government’s observations on the case. The Court transmitted the observations to the applicant, who was invited to submit his written comments by 10 April 2007. At the applicant’s representative’s request, the Court extended this time-limit until 7   May 2007. On   21 May 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that he no longer represented his client in the proceedings before the Court, in view of the client’s failure to submit a number of relevant documents. On   12 June 2007 the Court forwarded to the applicant the letter from his former representative, as well as the Government’s observations. It exceptionally extended the time-limit for submitting his observations and any claims for just satisfaction until 24 July 2007. The Court received no reply. By a registered letter of 13 August 2007, which was delivered on 30   August 2007, the Court warned the applicant that the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list. The applicant 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 his 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, the case 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.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President