CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 10 mars 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s15E2B0A7 { height:13.15pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s14DAB0A7 { height:13.95pt } .sB30C44B0 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { 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; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .s149A98 { width:22.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)15 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Malahov against Moldova   (Application No. 32268/02, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 12/11/2007)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court as a result of domestic courts’ refusal to examine her claim against her employer on the ground that she had not paid the court fees (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)15   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Malahov against Moldova     Introductory case summary   The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court as a result of the refusal in 2001 and 2002 of the domestic courts (the Râşcani District Court, the Chişinău Regional Court and the Court of Appeal) to examine her claim against her employer, on the ground that she had not paid the court fees (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   The European Court noted that under domestic law, not only may litigants be exempted from court fees if their financial circumstances justify it, but also that such fees are in any case not due in respect of labour-related claims. Although the applicant expressly referred to these provisions, the domestic courts refused to respond to her arguments. Consequently, the European Court concluded that the courts had failed to carry out a proper assessment of the applicant’s financial situation, as well as the nature of her claims.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - 1   800 EUR 600 EUR 2   400 EUR Paid on 22/01/2008   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded just satisfaction with respect of the non-pecuniary damages sustained by the applicant.   The European Court noted that the most appropriate form of redress would be the re-examination of the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 31 January 2001 (§ 47). Article 450 (g) of the Moldovan Code of Civil Procedure provides that requests for reopening cases may be lodged before the national court within three months following the delivery of the judgment of the European Court. It would appear that the applicant lodged no complaint before the national courts.   Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   The Moldovan authorities underlined that the violation in the case was not due to any shortcoming of the law, and given the circumstances of the case, the publication of the judgment on the official web site of the Ministry of Justice ( www.justice.md ) and in the Official Gazette , as well as its dissemination to national courts should ensure that the judgment will be taken into account by domestic courts and that similar violations will thus be prevented in the future.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The Moldovan government considers that no other individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 March 2011 at the 1108th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies