CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 mai 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 } .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 } .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. 38679/05 by Maria MIROSNICENCO against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 August 2005, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Maria Miroşnicenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău. She was represented before the Court by Ms V.Gutu, a lawyer practising in Chisinau. 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 was an employee of a State-owned company (“the Company”) run by the Ministry of Communications and Transport. Between 1999 and 2001 the Company ceased its activity and did not pay the applicant her salary. In 2001 the applicant initiated proceedings against the Company and sought the payment of salary arrears. On 17 June 2002, the Centru District Court awarded the applicant 4,557 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 348   euros (EUR) at the time, to be paid by her former employer. This judgment became final. Two enforcement warrants were issued. On   4   December 2002 the Centru District Court ordered the transfer of a building belonging to the Company to another company (“CFM”), owned by the State, in order to enforce a court order in favour of CFM. The applicant was allegedly not informed about that order. Her appeal was rejected as unfounded. Despite the applicant’s attempts to obtain the enforcement of the judgment, it has not been enforced to date. 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 final judgment in her favour. 2.     The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the final judgment had violated her right to protection of property, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW On 1 April 2009 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 2,253 (two thousand two hundred and fifty-three) euros to Mrs Maria Miroşnicenco, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. 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.” The Court also received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Victoria Guţu, the applicant’s representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova are prepared to pay 2,253 (two thousand two hundred and fifty-three) euros to Mrs Maria Miroşnicenco with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. 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 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