CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sAF759458 { width:174.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s28626D70 { height:49.55pt } .s4C8E8372 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sF2E21306 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9A51AA96 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sC27A3BDE { margin:0pt 7.1pt 0pt 5.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s9D943874 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sB3A7671E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sDEF7F84F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s689ACF7B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s5AE0F864 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s4121890B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s41D34707 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF759458 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 18472/05 Elena GUDEŢ against Moldova and 23 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   April 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged between 10 May 2005 and 15 September 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants and the applicant companies, referred to in the annex table, are Moldovan nationals or private companies registered in Moldova, except Partidul Popular Republican, which is a political party registered in Moldova. They lodged their applications between 10 May 2005 and 16   August 2010. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. 2.     All the applicants obtained final judgments in their favour. Enforcement warrants were issued. Some of these final judgments have not been enforced to date, either fully or in part, whereas others have been enforced with delay (see attached table). 3.     On 1 July 2011 a new law (Law No. 87) entered into force, instituting a remedy against the problem of non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and against the problem of unreasonable length of proceedings. 4.     On 29 September 2011 the Court informed the applicants of the new remedy, asking whether they intended to make use of it within the six ‑ month time-limit set by Law No. 87. The applicants’ attention was drawn to the fact that according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that failure to observe the above rule could constitute a reason for declaring the applications inadmissible. 5.     The applicants informed the Court that they intended to make use of the new remedy. Some of them had already initiated proceedings in accordance with Law No. 87. They did not dispute the effectiveness of the new remedy. THE LAW 6.     Relying on various provisions of the Convention (see attached table), the applicants complained that the State had failed to ensure the enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. 7.     The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications. 8.     The Court further notes that in the present cases the applicants agreed to use the new remedy and that in some cases the proceedings initiated by them under Law No. 87 are still pending. They did not dispute the effectiveness of the new remedy.   In this respect the Court recalls that in Balan v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012), it has held that the new remedy introduced by Law no. 87 was designed to address the issue of delayed enforcement of judgments and that it was not ineffective. It was also held that in spite of the fact that the new remedy only became available after the introduction of that application, the applicant was obliged to use it and that using it did not constitute and excessive burden for the applicant and for other applicants in a similar position. 9.     Having regard to its findings in Balan, cited above, and Manascurta v.   Moldova ((dec.), no. 31856/07, 14 February 2012), the Court concludes that the applicants in the present cases were also required by Article 35 § 1 to avail themselves of the new domestic remedy by pursuing the domestic proceedings under Law No. 87. It notes, however, that such proceedings have not been yet completed by them. 10.     It follows that the present applications, in so far as they concern alleged violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 on account on non-enforcement of final judgments must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. 11.     The Court has examined the remainder of the applicants’ complaints as submitted by them (see attached table). However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. It follows that the respective parts of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article   35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan   Deputy Registrar   President ANNEX TABLE   No. Application no. and date of lodging Date of communication to the respondent Government Applicant’s details Final judgment Issue Communicated complaints Other complaints Date of the applicant’s letter concerning the new remedy 1.     18472/05, lodged on 10.05.2005 16.12.2008 Ms Elena GUDEŢ, born in 1936, deceased in 2006, represented by her daughter and successor, Ms Elena RAŞCO Chişinău Court of Appeal, 3.05.2006 Belated enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 n/a 1.11.2011 2.     18763/05, lodged on 15.05.2005 20.01.2009 Ms Maria GOLBA, born in 1956 and living in Criuleni Supreme Court of Justice, 24.03.2004 Belated enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 7.11.2011 3.     25110/05, lodged on 28.06.2005 22.01.2009 Mr Gheorghe CIOCAN, born in 1953 and living in Chişinău Court of Appeal of the Republic of Moldova, 26.03.2002 Belated enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 7.11.2011 4.     36351/05, lodged on 29.08.2005 9.12.2008 Mr Ion JOSANU, born in 1954 and living in Cioresti Chişinău Court of Appeal, 20.07.2004 Belated enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 19.10.2011 5.     859/06, lodged on 12.12.2005 30.11.2009 Mr Igor ŢURCANU, born in 1969 and living in Edineţ Supreme Court of Justice, 13.04.2005 Partial enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 29.09.2011 6.     10831/06, lodged 23.02.2006 16.12.2008 Ms Vera ZBÎRNEA and Mr Nicolae CIOINA, born in 1959 and 1964 respectively and living in Chişinău Court of Appeal of the Republic of Moldova, 30.11.2000 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 Article 2 of the Convention Received by the Court on 15.11.2011 7.     38638/06, lodged on 8.09.2006 16.12.2008 Mr Sergiu BALTA, born in 1967 and living in Chişinău Buiucani District Court, 4.09.2000 Belated enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 4.11.2011 8.     39499/06, lodged on 14.09.2006 12.11.2008 Proiecttehservice SRL, private company registered in Moldova Economic Court of Appeal, 24.03.2004 and Economic Court of Appeal, 24.02.2004 Belated enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 4.11.2011 9.     42436/06, lodged on 28.09.2006 27.01.2009 Coldin-DC, private company registered in Moldova Chişinău District Economic Court, 31.01.2003 Partial enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 14.10.2011 10.     11003/07, lodged on 09.02.2007 09.12.2008 Mr Ion CERNICA, born in 1962 and living in Sărăţenii-Vechi Orhei District Court, 20.05.1998 Partial enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 Article 3 of the Convention 27.10.2011 11.     432/08, lodged on 26.12.2007 5.12.2008 Ms Svetlana ŞURAVSCHI and Ms Larisa SOLONARI, born in 1961 and 1960 respectively and living in Chişinău Supreme Court of Justice, 1.03.2006 Partial enforcement Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 9.11.2011 12.     755/08, lodged on 19.10.2007 6.05.2011 Auto-Mar SRL, private company registered in Moldova Supreme Court of Justice, 30.09.2004 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 Article 14 of the Convention 9.11.2011 13.     6928/08, lodged on 16.01.2008 20.01.2009 Ms Elena BORDENIUC, born in 1961 and living in Orhei Supreme Court of Justice, 4.07.2006 Partial enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a Received by the Court on 9.11.2011 14.     28426/08, lodged on 5.06.2008 27.05.2011 Mr Grigore CIOBANU, born in 1942 and living in Căuşeni Chişinău Court of Appeal, 24.05.2006 Causeni District Court, 25.10.2006 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 19.10.2011 15.     25686/09, lodged on 29.04.2009 6.05.2011 Mr Ion RARU, born on 1.11.1958, living in Andruşul de Jos Cahul District Court, 6.04.2004 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a Received by the Court on 8.12.2011 16.     30861/09, lodged on 10.06.2009 6.05.2011 Subervin SRL, private company registered in Moldova Chişinău Economic District Court, 20.11.2008 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 2.11.2011 17.     30862/09, lodged on 10.06.2009 6.05.2011 Pomul SRL, private company registered in Moldova Chişinău Economic District Court, 20.11.2008 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 2.11.2011 18.     34177/09, lodged on 15.06.2009 6.05.2011 Mr Valeriu LEONDARI, born on 8.03.1970 and living in Edineţ Bălţi Court of Appeal, 1.12.2006 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a Received by the Court on 7.11.2011 19.     34196/09, lodged on 17.06.2009 6.05.2011 Partidul Popular Republican, a political party registered in Moldova Economic Court of Appeal, 3.12.2004 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 16.12.2011 20.     40912/09, lodged on 20.07.2009 6.05.2011 Drabant SRL, private company registered in Moldova Supreme Court of Justice, 23.07.2008 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 2.11.2011 21.     43501/09, lodged on 01.07.2009 14.03.2011 Ms Galina RUSU, born in 1969 and lives in Chişinău Chişinău Court of Appeal, 12.05.2009 Belated enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 Article 14 of the Convention 8.11.2011 22.     20260/10, lodged on 22.03.2010 14.03.2011 Mr Victor GURĂU, date of birth unknown, living in Chişinău Supreme Court of Justice, 29.10.2008 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 2.11.2011 23.     49294/10, lodged on 16.08.2010 14.03.2011 Ms Tatiana LOGACIOV, born in 1972 and living in Vadul lui Vodă Chişinău Regional Court, 13.11.2002 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 12.10.2011 24.     56395/10, lodged on 15.09.2010 14.03.2011 Rodea-Lux SRL, private company registered in Moldova Supreme Court of Justice, 10.12.2008 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1 n/a 10.11.2011