CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sA5B1D89 { width:165.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9FB98CC4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s95AD1C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2EBECB52 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; list-style-position:inside } .sA0D17C33 { width:1.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 19234/08 Oxana GUTUL against the Republic of Moldova and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   October 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour. Subsequently, those judgments were quashed either by accepting an appeal lodged outside the statutory time-limit or by way of revision proceedings. Before the Court, the applicants complained about the abusive quashing of the final judgments in their favour. 5.     The cases were communicated to the Moldovan Government between 26   April 2010 and 13 November 2012. 6.     After communication, in cases nos. 19234/08 and 40827/09, the Prosecutor General, following a request from the Government Agent, lodged revision requests with the Supreme Court of Justice, seeking the reopening of proceedings and the redress of the applicants’ rights. In both cases, on 8 December 2010 and 13 April 2011 respectively, the Supreme Court of Justice found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as a result of the quashing of final judgments in the applicants’ favour. The Court quashed the judgments adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. As a result, the final judgments in the applicants’ favour were restored. 7.     After communication of case no. 3246/11, on 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the applicant’s appeal in cassation, found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as a result of the quashing of the final judgment in her favour and awarded her 16,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 1,002 euros (EUR)) as non-pecuniary damage. The final judgment in the applicant’s favour was restored. The applicant requested the Supreme Court of Justice to deliver an additional judgment and to award her MDL 9,811 (equivalent to EUR 520) and EUR 350 as costs and expenses. On 26   March 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the request noting that the applicant had failed to claim any compensation in her appeal in cassation. COMPLAINTS 8.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and, except for case no. 19234/08, also under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the illegal quashing of the final judgments in their favour. THE LAW 9.     The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications. 10.     The Government submitted that the applicants’ situation had been redressed and that they have either failed to exhaust domestic remedies or have lost their victim status; in particular, that they did not submit any claims of compensation before domestic courts. They asked the Court to declare the applications inadmissible. 11.     The applicants disagreed and argued that they had suffered damage as a result of the actions taken by the State authorities when they quashed the final judgments in their favour. They argued that the restoration of the validity of those judgments did not constitute sufficient compensation for that damage. Before the Court they claimed: - in case no. 19234/08: EUR 13,000 as pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 as non-pecuniary damage; - in case no. 40827/09: EUR 2,000 as pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 as non-pecuniary damage; and - in case no. 3246/11: EUR 2,000 as non-pecuniary damage and EUR   870 as costs and expenses in domestic proceedings and in proceedings before the Court. 12. The Court reiterates that under Article 34 of the Convention it may receive applications from any person claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. In this regard, the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all stages of the proceedings under the Convention (see, among others, Burdov v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 33509/04, § 54-60 and 100, ECHR 2009 (extracts)). A decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI). As to the redress which is appropriate and sufficient in order to remedy a breach of a Convention right at national level, the Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, having regard, in particular, to the nature of the Convention violation at stake (see, as recent authorities, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 116 et seq., ECHR 2010, and Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, §§ 76-84, 2 November 2010). 13.     Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court observes that the Prosecutor General and the applicant respectively lodged a request to find a violation of the applicants’ rights under the Convention and to redress the illegal quashing of the judgments in the applicants’ favour. The Supreme Court of Justice fully accepted the requests. In doing so, it also expressly established a violation of the applicants’ rights protected under Article 6 of the Convention. By restoring the judgments in the applicants’ favour, it acknowledged in substance a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above). In case no.   3246/11, the court awarded the applicant EUR 1,002 as non-pecuniary damage. The judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice were final. 14.     The Court needs therefore to verify whether the applicants were offered redress for the damage caused to them by the established violations, so as to determine whether they have lost their victim status. 15.     In this respect, the Court notes that the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice clearly found a violation of the applicants’ rights. However, the applicants did not submit any claims of compensation or supporting evidence and the court consequently did not award any compensation, except for case no. 3246/11 which referred to a labour dispute. 16.     The Court observes that it has already declared inadmissible complaints where a violation of Convention rights had been fully established by the domestic courts and where the applicant had not attempted to obtain compensation at the domestic level (see, mutatis mutandis , Mătăsaru and Saviţchi v. Moldova , no. 38281/08, §§ 75-76, 2   November 2010, and Bisir and Tulus v. Moldova , no. 42973/05, §§ 36-37, 17 May 2011). It has also found in the past that the domestic courts’ decisions awarding no compensation in the absence of a claim or awarding only a part of the sum claimed in compensation corresponding to the evidence submitted to them, could be accepted as offering sufficient redress (see, for instance, Vladimir Kolobov v. Russia (dec.), no. 26528/03, 28 June 2011, Daniel-P S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 32846/07, 20   March 2012). It does not see any compelling reason to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned cases. 17.     In view of the foregoing, the applicants should be considered as having lost their victim status in relation to the present application. Thus, the Court concludes that the applicants are no longer victims of the alleged violations and that the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 17 November 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No Application no. and date of introduction Applicant’s name nationality date of birth place of residence representative Details on the final judgment Details on proceedings in breach of Article 6 of the Convention and of complaints Details on redress proceedings   19234/08, 26/03/2008 Oxana GUȚUL, Moldovan national, born on 31/10/1979, lives in Chișinău   Divorce and alimony proceedings   Judgment of 28 February 2007 of the Botanica District Court awarded the applicant a monthly alimony of MDL 2,500 On 26 September 2007 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the other party’s time-barred appeal and decreased the monthly alimony to MDL 1,500   Judgment upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 16 January 2008   Complaint under Article 6 of the Convention On 8 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the Prosecutor General’s revision request, found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 16 January 2008 and the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 26 September 2007 and ordered a rehearing of the case.   On 11 May 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal reheard the other party’s appeal, dismissed it as time-barred, upheld the judgment of the Botanica District Court of 28 February 2007.     40827/09, 20/07/2009 Rodica BUZURIN, Moldovan national, born on 23/10/1973, lives in Chișinău   Debt recovery proceedings   Judgment of 15 October 2008 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal awarded the applicant MDL 24,450 On 28 January 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the other party’s revision request and reopened proceedings   Complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention   On 13 April 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the Prosecutor General’s revision request, found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, quashed the judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 28 January 2009, thus restoring the judgment of 15 October 2008 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal.   3246/11, 29/12/2010 Svetlana ERHAN, Moldovan national, born on 29/03/1963, lives in Ialoveni, represented by Vasile TARNOVSCHI   Labour dispute   Judgment of 23 April 2007 of the Ialoveni District Court obliged the employer to refrain from interfering with the applicant’s labour rights On 1 July 2010 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the other party’s revision request and reopened proceedings   Complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention On 20 March 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicant’s appeal in cassation, found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and quashed the judgment of 1 July 2010 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal and all subsequent judgments, thus restoring the judgment of 23 April 2007 of the Ialoveni District Court. The court awarded the applicant MDL 16,000 as non-pecuniary damage.   On 26 March 2014 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s request for an additional judgment to award costs and expenses, noting that the applicant failed to submit such claims in her appeal in cassation.