CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 janvier 2009

.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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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. 38421/05 by Dumitru TATARU against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   January 2009 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 13 October 2005, Having regard to the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Dumitru Tataru, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1941 and lives in Bubuieci Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Grecu, a lawyer practising 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. On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Bubuieci Local Council seeking the allocation of a parcel of land of 1.9   hectares, in accordance with the Land Code. By a final judgment of 11 March 2003 the Ciocana District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Bubuieci Local Council to allocate him the parcel sought. The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant and formally requested that the judgment be enforced; however, it has not been enforced to date. COMPLAINT The applicant complained that his rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 11 March 2003. THE LAW On 25 and 29 April 2008 the Court received from the parties a document containing a friendly-settlement agreement which read inter alia as follows: “...The Government shall pay the applicant EUR 2,736 representing the value of the parcel of land..., EUR 500 for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. The above amounts shall be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement and paid within three months from the date on which this case will be struck off the list of cases by the Court. ...The payment of the above amounts will represent a full enforcement of the judgment of the Ciocana District Court of 11 March 2003 and a full and final settlement of the present case. ... The applicant shall withdraw his application ... and declares that he does not have further claims against the Government... 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). Accordingly, the case should be struck 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