CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 février 2010

.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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s646AD26C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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. 28534/03 by Ana URSU against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2   February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Giovanni Bonello,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 June 2003, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 26 January 2007 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having regard to the additional declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Ana Ursu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1918 and lives in Costeşti. She was represented before the Court by Mr   N.   Daniliuc, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   V.   Grosu. On 11 June 2001 the Ialoveni District Court ordered the local council to allocate to the applicant a plot of land. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final fifteen days later. On 21 August 2003 the local council decided to allocate the plot of land to the applicant. On an unspecified date thereafter she obtained possession of that land. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the late enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. 2. The applicant also alleged that the late enforcement of the judgment had infringed her right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention. THE LAW The applicant complained about the late enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. She relied on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1, which in so far as relevant, provide as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” Article 1 of Protocol No.1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions”. By letter dated 26 January 2007 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the fact that non-enforcement during twenty-six   months of the judgment pronounced on 11 June 2001 had violated Mrs Ursu’s rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicant 700   euros (EUR) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, 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 a letter of 25 March 2007 the applicant’s representative expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. He stated that on 27 October 2006 the applicant had initiated proceedings to obtain compensation for late enforcement. By letter dated 19 February 2009 the Government informed the Court that those proceedings were still pending. By letter dated 28 October 2009 the Government amended their previous declaration by undertaking to pay the applicant EUR 1,200 to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The applicant did not submit any comments on this matter. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37 §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations of 26 January 2007 and 28 October 2009, as well as the amount of compensation proposed in the declaration of 28   October 2009 – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c). The Court understands that the payment will be effected within a period of 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 within that period, the Court also understands that the Government will pay simple interest on it, from the 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. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations of 26 January 2007 and 28 October 2009, and the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President