CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s701081D1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:left } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sBF1D92B9 { width:173.61pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 15974/07 Pavel DRUJCO against the Republic of Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   November 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President ,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Valeriu Griţco, judges , and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2005, Having regard to the decision to communicate the application following the adoption of the pilot judgment in the case of Olaru and others ( Olaru and Others v. Moldova , nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28   July 2009), 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 1.     The applicant, Mr Pavel Drujco, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Bizgu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant is a former policeman and together with his family are displaced persons who fled Transdniestria after the 1992 war. In that capacity they were entitled to social housing under the law in force at that time. 4.     On 2 September 2004 the Chișinău municipality contracted a private company A. to build and upon completion to sell residential space to persons displaced from Transdniestria, while the municipality paid a share of the price. 5.     On 18 October 2004 the applicant concluded a contract with A. for the purchase of a 3-room apartment of 93.5 sq.m. According to that contract the Municipality agreed to pay the first instalment of 400,000 Moldavian lei (MDL), amounting to 78.56% of the total cost and the applicant undertook to pay the rest in the course of ten years after settling in that apartment. The delivery of the apartment was scheduled for September 2006. A property title to the apartment was to be issued after the applicant paid his full contribution. 6.     On 28 December 2004 the applicant received confirmation that the Municipality had paid the first instalment. 7.     In the meantime, at an unspecified date the applicant initiated court proceedings seeking the acknowledgement of his right to social housing and compensation of non-pecuniary damage. 8.     By a final judgment of 25 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy, to provide him with accommodation but dismissed his claims for non-pecuniary damage. 9.     On 17 March 2006, on 12 April 2006 and on 16 August 2006 the applicant requested the Ministry of Finance and, accordingly, the municipality to grant him an additional 200,000 MDL to cover his contribution for the apartment and the costs of finishing works in that apartment. 10.     On 19 April 2006, 21 July 2006 and 26 September 2006 the authorities explained that by signing the contract with A., the applicant had agreed to pay a part of the apartment’s price, while the contribution of 400,000 MDL paid by the municipality constituted the enforcement of the court judgment in the applicant’s favour. 11.     On 2 April 2007 the applicant signed an act confirming the reception of the apartment. COMPLAINTS 12.     Referring to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, the applicant complained that the State had failed to ensure the enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgment in his favour. THE LAW 13.     The applicant complained about the failure to fully enforce the judgment of 25 May 2005. He invoked Articles 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention. The relevant Articles provide, in so far as relevant, 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.” Article 1 of Protocol 1: “1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...” 14.     The Government disagreed with the applicant and argued that by making a contribution of 400,000 MDL towards the cost of the applicant’s apartment the State had discharged its obligation to provide the applicant with accommodation and had thus enforced the judgment in the applicant’s favour. They also argued that by signing a contract with A. the applicant had agreed to pay the remaining cost. They argued, therefore, that the application was ill-founded. The Government also contended that the applicant had submitted misleading information and claimed the non-enforcement of a final judgment although he had already been offered accommodation. In view of the above-mentioned considerations, the Government submitted that the application was an abuse of process for the purposes of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and asked the Court to declare it inadmissible on those grounds. 15.     The applicant maintained his claims, arguing that the judgment in his favour was enforced only partially and that to discharge its obligation the State should have covered the full cost of the apartment and of finishing works. 16.       The Court agrees with the Government that the applicant provided it with incomplete information and that the case was communicated on the basis of such information. Nevertheless, since the applicant’s complaints are in any event manifestly ill-founded (see below), the Court does not consider it necessary to reach any conclusion on the issue whether or not the present application is an abuse of process. 17.   The Court notes that the judgment of 25 May 2005, by which the applicant was to be granted housing, remained unenforced until 2   April   2007, for about a year and ten months. In so far as the applicant may be understood as alleging that the conditions in which the flat was granted to him did not meet the terms of the judgment, the Court notes that on 18   October 2004 the applicant concluded a contract for the purchase of that flat, accepting that the municipality contribute 78.5% of the price and undertaking to make a contribution towards its remaining cost. It appears that following that contract the municipality paid its contribution by 28   December 2004 and on 2 April 2007 the applicant confirmed the reception of the flat from the construction company; further, a property title to the flat is to be issued after the applicant pays his full contribution. There is no indication that the applicant ever complained in domestic courts or before any other competent authority that he had signed the contract of 18   October   2004 under duress or that the municipality had to repay his contribution and the cost of finishing works. In these circumstances the Court accepts the Government’s view that the judgment of 25 May 2005 was enforced on 2   April 2007, when the applicant received the apartment. It will further examine whether the delay of one year and ten months in its enforcement was justified. 18.     The Court reiterates that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, §   35, ECHR 2002-III, Kukalo v. Russia , no. 63995/00, §§ 51-52, 3   November 2005). Admittedly, enforcement of a judgment concerning allocation of a flat may take a longer time than payment of a sum of money ( Shilov and Baykova v. Russia , no. 703/02, §§ 21-26, 29 June 2006). 19.     In Shilov and Baykova v. Russia (cited above), the Court concluded that a delay of one year and seven months in the enforcement of decisions for the grant of housing was not excessive because the authorities experienced objective difficulties as at the relevant time they had not owned any readily available residential premises. 20.     In the present case, the Ministry of Finance and the municipality did not own any readily available residential premises and this is why they chose to contract a company to build such premises. The events that took place before and after the judgment of 25 May 2005, namely the conclusion of the contract on 18 October 2004 setting the time-limit for the delivery of the flat in September 2006, the payment of the first instalment by the municipality on 28 December 2004 and the receipt of the flat on 2   April   2007, cannot be disregarded by the Court in examining whether the Government discharged its obligations to take sufficient steps for the enforcement of the obligation to provide the applicant with accommodation. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the present case the State has done what could reasonably have been expected of it in order to enforce the judgment of 25 May 2005 (see Fociac v. Romania , no.   2577/02, § 78, 3 February 2005) and the delay of a year and ten months in the circumstances does not appear to have impaired the essence of the applicant’s right to a court or represent a disproportionate interference with his property rights. The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must dismissed in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Luis López Guerra   Deputy Registrar   President