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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sB4286D70 { height:46.85pt } .s4C8E8372 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s261F9637 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8.5pt } .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 } .s6D78030D { margin:0pt 7.1pt 0pt 5.65pt; text-align:center; font-size:8.5pt } .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 } .s168A7E2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .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 } .s90D1A40A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8.5pt } .sDCE36575 { height:31.45pt } .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. 33358/06 Victor GÎRLEA against Moldova and 13 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 27 July 2006 and 1 November 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicants, referred to in the annexed table, are private academic institutions registered in Moldova and Moldovan nationals except Mr   Lîsenco who is a Ukrainian national. They lodged their applications between 27 July 2006 and 1 November 2009. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V.   Grosu. The Ukrainian Government were informed of their right to intervene in the application no. 18008/09, but did not avail themselves of that right. 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 in response that they were not intending to use the new remedy because it was not effective. 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 decided not to use the new remedy, disputing its effectiveness. 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, 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 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.     33358/06, lodged on 27.07.2006 16.12.2008 Mr Victor GÎRLEA, born in 1948 and living in Rezina Supreme Court of Justice, 1.02.2006 Partial enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.1 n/a 25.10.2011 2.     44201/06, lodged on 19.10.2006 20.01.2009 Mr Vladimir PANFIL, born in 1970 and living in Ialoveni Ialoveni District Court, 4.11.1998 Partial enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.1 n/a 5.11.2011 3.     36981/07, lodged on 9.08.2007 17.06.2010 Liceul Columna, Liceul Elitex, Liceul de Limbi Moderne si Management and Liceul International de Management Imi-Nova, private academic institutions registered in Moldova Supreme Court of Justice, 7.03.2007 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.1 n/a 20.10.2011 4.     38119/07, lodged on 13.08.2007 06.05.2011 Mr Nicolae CHETREAN, date of birth unknown, living in Boşcana Ciocana District Court, 29.01.2001 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 n/a 20.10.2011 5.     5732/08, lodged on 18.01.2008 09.12.2008 Mr Dmitri ASTAŞOV, born in 1970 and living in Donetsk Chişinău Court of Appeal, 13.04.2004 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.1 Article 6 of the Convention (length of proceedings) 9.11.2011 6.     9205/08, lodged on 29.01.2008 10.10.2008 Mr Grigore GUŢULEAC, born in 1960 and living in Chişinău Chişinău Court of Appeal, 14.12.2007 Partial enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.1 n/a 10.11.2011 7.     38741/08, lodged on 17.07.2008 15.03.2010 Ms Ana GHENCIU and Mr Dumitru GHENCIU, born in 1932 and 1929 respectively and living in Suric Cimişlia District Court, 15.12.2005 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 n/a 10.11.2011 8.     41590/08, lodged on 20.08.2008 06.05.2011 Mr Andrei NICOLAESCU, born in 30.03.1965 and living in Costiujeni Supreme Court of Justice, 20.03.2008 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 Article 6 of the Convention (alleged lack of reasons) 8.11.2011 9.     18008/09, lodged on 19.03.2009 6.05.2011 Mr Igor LÎSENCO, Ukrainian national, and Mr Alexandru CRUCIC, Moldovan national, born on 27.06.1982 and 10.05.1974 respectively, living in Odessa and Chişinău respectively Chişinău Court of Appeal, 18.10.2007 Non-enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 n/a 17.10.2011 10.     22923/09, lodged on 13.06.2009 25.05.2010 Ms Alexandra PAVLENCO, date of birth unknown, living in Chişinău Rîscani District Court, 14.12.2002 Non-enforcement Articles 6 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.1 n/a 19.11.2011 11.     49247/09, lodged on 26.08.2009 14.03.2011 Mr Ion LEVINŢA, born in 1958 and living in Chişinău Orhei District Court, 11.02.1998 Belated enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 n/a 20.10.2011 12.     50214/09, lodged on 8.09.2009 14.03.2011 Mr Adrian CENUŞĂ, born in 1977 and living in Chişinău Supreme Court of Justice, 16.09.2009 Belated enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 n/a 3.11.2011 13.     56223/09, lodged on 11.05.2009 14.03.2011 Mr Tudor CIORAP, born in 1965 and living in Chişinău Supreme Court of Justice, 10.12.2008 Belated enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 Article 8 of the Convention Received by the Court on 21.10.2011 14.     58514/09, lodged on 01.11.2009 14.03.2011 Mr Vasile NOGAI, born in 1942 and living in Chişinău Supreme Court of Justice, 16.09.2009 Belated enforcement Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1 Article 14 of the Convention 10.11.2011