CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9493FCBA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s50CB62E2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:32.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify } .s2B9FE6BC { width:7.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D4532D { width:8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D7F0777 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s868E54BF { width:31.6pt; display:inline-block } .sDAF16287 { width:162.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 41369/05, 41556/05, 42308/05, 33566/06, 33567/06, 33568/06, 33570/06 by Sergiu SUMILA and 6 others against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26   January 2010 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 2 November 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are all Moldovan nationals. They were represented before the Court by Ms E. Botnari. 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. All the applicants were employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the Ministry”). Between 1997 and 2005 the applicants initiated proceedings against the Ministry for miscalculating their pensions (applications nos. 41556/05 , 42308/05 , 33566/06, 33567/06, 33568/06 and 33570/06) and failing to pay compensation for dangerous working conditions (application no. 41369/05). They all obtained final judgments in their favour and enforcement warrants were issued. On 1 November 2003 Mr Semenov died. On 30 December 2003, 20 January, 2 February, 4 March, 24 March and 23 July 2004 respectively, the final judgments in favour of Mr Kudreavţev, Mr Coseac, Mr   Sîtnic, Mr   Evgrafov, Mr Ianiv, Mr Şumila and Mr   Semenov were fully enforced. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right of access to a court had been violated by a failure to enforce the final judgments in their favour. 2.     In applications nos. 41556/05, 42308/05, 33566/06, 33567/06, 33568/06, and 33570/06, the applicants also complained, under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, that by failing to enforce the final judgments in their favour the Moldovan authorities had infringed their right to private life and that they had also been victims of discriminatory treatment. 3.     The applicants also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgments had violated their right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW The applicants principally submitted that there had been a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 because of the failure to enforce the final judgments in their favour. Except in the Ş umila case, they also submitted that by failing to enforce the final judgments in their favour the Moldovan authorities had infringed their right to private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and that they had also been victims of discriminatory treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides: “1.   In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair hearing ... within a reasonable time by a tribunal ....” Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 to the Convention provides:   “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”   In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Government submitted that: a)      Mr Şumila had lodged his application with the Court on 2   November   2005, that is one year, seven months and ten days after the final judgment in his favour had been enforced; b)      Mr Evgrafov had lodged his application with the Court on 2   November   2005, that is one year and nine months after the final judgment in his favour had been enforced; c)      Mr Kudreavţev had lodged his application with the Court on 3   November   2005, that is one year, ten months and five days after the final judgment in his favour had been enforced; d)      Mr Ianiv, Mr Sîtnic and Mr Coseac had lodged their applications with the Court on 24 April 2006, that is, respectively, two years, one month and twenty days, two years and three months, and two years and four months after the final judgments in their favour had been enforced; e)      the application in the name of Mr Semenov had been lodged on 24   April 2006, that is one year and nine months after the final judgment in his favour had been enforced. The Government submitted documents confirming that the final judgments in favour of the applicants had been fully enforced. The Government argued that, since the applications had been knowingly lodged with the Court long after the final judgments in favour of the applicants had been enforced, they should be declared abusive. The applicants’ representative failed to submit any comments in respect of this matter. The Court notes from the outset that the applicants complained exclusively that the final judgments in their favour had not been enforced. They did not raise any complaints in respect of lack of compensation for late enforcement. Thus, the Court considers that it is not necessary, in the present cases, to decide whether the applications are an abuse of the right of petition, since it is clear that all the applicants have failed to comply with the six-month rule set out in Article   35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that all the applications must be rejected as being out of time, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.     Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President