CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 octobre 2014

.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 } .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 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF BONDARENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA   (Application no. 10823/06)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   14 October 2014     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bondarenco v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 10823/06) 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 a Moldovan national, Ms Natalia Bondarenco (“the applicant”), on 3 March 2006. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr S. Bivol, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. 3.     On 1 September 2008 the application was communicated to the Government. 4.     On 2 February 2009 the Government submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The applicant did not submit any observations within the imparted time-limit. 5.     On 17 June 2014 the Court informed the Government that since the application was already subject of well-established case-law of the Court it was decided to assign it to a Committee of three judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Chișinău. 7.     In 1989 the Chişinău Local Council let an apartment to the applicant. In 2000 the Local Council declared the building in which the applicant had been renting the apartment to be under threat of collapse and on an unspecified date it was demolished. The applicant brought an action against the Chişinău Local Council seeking the allocation of an apartment in lieu of the old one. 8.     By a final judgment of 18 March 2003 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Chişinău Local Council to provide her with an apartment. 9.     Between 2003 and 2004 she lodged numerous complaints about the failure to enforce the judgment in her favour to no avail.   The judgment of 18   March 2003 of the Rîşcani District Court has not been enforced to date. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 10.     Law no. 87, which created a new remedy to address complaints of non-enforcement of final judgments, entered into force on 1 July 2011. Further details of the Law are set out in this Court’s decision in Balan v.   Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No.1 TO THE CONVENTION 11.     The applicant complained about the failure to fully enforce the judgment of 18 March 2003. She invoked Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court will examine de application under Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol   No.1, which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article   6 “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   No.   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...”   A.     Admissibility 12.     In their letter of 23 June 2014 the Government raised for the first time the objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, on the ground that the applicant had not availed herself of the remedy provided by Law no.   87. 13.     The Court notes that in Olaru and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, § 61, 28 July 2009) it concluded that the applicants in cases referring to social housing, lodged before the delivery of that judgment, were dispensed from exhausting the new remedy put in place after the delivery of that pilot judgment. 14.     In view of the above, the Court concludes that the present application, which concerns social housing and which was lodged before the delivery of the Olaru judgment, cannot be declared inadmissible for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies. Accordingly the Government’s objection must be dismissed. 15.     The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 16.     The applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour had violated her rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention. 17.     The Government submitted that they had taken measures directed at the enforcement of the judgment in question; however, it could not be enforced in view of the high number of similar unenforced judgments and of lack of funds on the part of the local public authorities. They considered that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. 18.     The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Prodan v. Moldova , no.   49806/99, § 56 and 62, ECHR 2004 ‑ III (extracts), Olaru and Others v.   Moldova , cited above, § 41). 19.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the failure to enforce the judgment in favour of the applicant constitutes a violation of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. II.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 20.     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.” 21.     The applicant did not submit any claims for just satisfaction within the time-limit imparted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Declares the application admissible;   2.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2014, pursuant to Rule   77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Marialena Tsirli   Dragoljub Popović Deputy Registrar   President