CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 février 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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s40269D5B { width:34.93pt; 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 Application no. 42365/07 by Petru COSLET against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   February 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 10 September 2007, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Petru Coşleţ, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 24 July 2006 the applicant, a farmer, requested the Chişinău Municipal Council (“the Council”) to confirm his ownership of a plot of land. The council refused his request. The applicant instituted court proceedings against the Council, seeking an order obliging them to recognise his ownership of the disputed plot of land. On 15 December 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal held in the applicant's favour. On 30 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the first-instance court's judgment. That judgment was final. On 26 February 2008 the Municipal Council adopted a decision recognising the applicant's ownership of the above-mentioned plot of land. On 31 March 2008 the Municipal Council concluded a contract of sale with the applicant in respect of the plot of land. The applicant did not inform the Court about the enforcement of the judgment in his favour and it was only from the Government's observations that the Court learned of it. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to a court had been violated by a failure to enforce the final judgment in his favour. THE LAW The applicant complained of the late enforcement of the judgment of 30   May 2007. He invoked Article 6 § 1, the relevant part of which provides as follows: Article 6 § 1: “1.     In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... within a reasonable time.” The Government submitted that since the judgment had been enforced before the applicant had lodged his application, he could not claim to be a victim. The applicant confirmed that on 26 February 2008 the Municipal Council had issued a decision recognising his ownership of the plot of land, but argued that the actual enforcement had been carried out only on 31 March 2008, when the applicant had concluded a contract of sale with the Municipal Council in respect of the plot of land. In his opinion, the enforcement proceedings should be considered as having lasted from 30 May 2007 to 31   March 2008, that is, ten months and two days. The Court notes that the judgment of 30 May 2007 in favour of the applicant was final and enforceable. The domestic court ordered the Municipal Council to adopt a decision in respect of the sale of the plot of land to the applicant. In the Court's view, the Municipal Council complied with the final judgment on 26 February 2008 by issuing the decision in respect of the sale of the plot of land to the applicant, as ordered. Thus, the overall period of non-enforcement was less than nine months. Even assuming that the date of final enforcement was the date on which the contract of sale in respect of the plot of land was signed by the applicant, that is 31   March 2008, only ten months had elapsed after the judgment had become enforceable. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for instance, Nedelcov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 19261/05, 27 January 2009), and to the fact that the Chişinău Municipal Council fully complied with the judgment within a relatively short period, the Court finds that it was enforced within a “reasonable time”. There being, in addition, no factors in the present case which could be considered to have required special diligence and speedier enforcement (see, conversely, Ungureanu v. Moldova , no. 27568/02, 6   September 2007), the Court finds that the complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Osoian v. Moldova (dec.), no. 31413/03, 28   February 2006). Accordingly, the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President