CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 29 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFCF63115 { width:173.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF AGURDINO S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA   (Application no. 7359/06)               JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction)       STRASBOURG   29 October 2013   FINAL   24/03/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Agurdino S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 7359/06) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Agurdino S.R.L. (“the applicant company”), a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova, on 16 February 2006. 2.     In a judgment delivered on 27 September 2011 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there was a breach of Article 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Agurdino S.R.L. v. Moldova , no. 7359/06, 27 September 2011). 3.     Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach. 4.     The applicant and the Government failed to reach an agreement and filed observations. THE LAW 5.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A.     Damage 6.     The applicant company claimed EUR 2,390.5 for pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the quashing of the judgment of 22   June   2002. This amount consisted of the sum which the applicant company paid to the Inspectorate following the quashing of the judgment of 22 June 2002 (EUR   1,198.02) and the default interest of EUR 1,192.48 calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Moldovan Civil Code. 7.     The applicant company also claimed EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. 8.     The Government considered that these claims were excessive and ill-founded. Moreover, it was possible for the applicant company to claim compensation in the domestic courts, which had not been done in the present case. 9.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is not applicable in respect of just satisfaction claims made under Article 41 of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), judgment of 10 March 1972, Series A no. 14, §§ 15 and 16, and Becciev v. Moldova , no. 9190/03, § 80, 4 October 2005). Therefore, the applicant company cannot be expected to initiate new proceedings claiming compensation for the violations found in the principal judgment. 10.     The Court accepts that the applicant company suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of the breaches found in the principal judgment. Taking into account the circumstances of the case under consideration and making its own assessment, the Court awards the applicant company a total amount of EUR 4,400 in compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. B.     Costs and expenses 11.     The applicant also claimed EUR 1,797.5 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. It submitted documents in support of its claims. 12.     The Government contested this amount and argued that it was excessive and unsubstantiated. 13.     The Court observes that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, §   62, ECHR   1999-VIII). 14.     The Court awards EUR 1,700 for costs and expenses. C.     Default interest 15.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article   44   §   2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)     EUR 4,400 (four thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; (ii)     EUR 1,700 (one thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;   2.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicant company’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President