CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 16 avril 2014

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .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 } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA8507A40 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s95444FF0 { width:29.84pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s2C0BCC49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:9pt } .sC3C3BCB8 { width:27.07pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA0611542 { color:#000000 } .sE23107D { width:24.29pt; display:inline-block } Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)49 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Asito against the Republic of Moldova   Application Case Judgment of Final on 40663/98 ASITO 08/11/2005 24/04/2007 08/02/2006 24/04/2007   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 April 2014 at the 1197th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     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 final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violations established;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see details in Appendix);   Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination thereof. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2014)49   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Asito against the Republic of Moldova     Introductory case summary   The case concerns violations of the right of the applicant, an insurance company, to a fair hearing and to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) due to a provision of the Law on Economic Courts of 2006 (Article 38 § 3 of Law No. 970), which allowed the Prosecutor General to request the annulment of any final domestic judgment. On the basis of this provision, in September and July 1997, the Chamber of the Economic Court competent for appeals on points of law and the Supreme Court of Justice, respectively, set aside final judgments in favour of the applicant company given in 1996 and 1997 by the Arbitration Court, concerning the validity of a contract between the applicant and another private company and the applicant’s right to claim the debt owed to it by the other company. The Court stressed, in particular, that the power vested in the Prosecutor General under Article 38 § 3 of Law No. 970 infringes the principle of legal certainty and "cannot be regarded as compatible with the rule of law".     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total     237 EUR 237 EUR Paid on 17/04/2006   b) Individual measures   Following its finding of a violation on the merits of the case, the Court reserved the application of Article 41 of the Convention concerning the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages. In the friendly settlement concluded between the parties, the applicant agreed that the finding of the violation by the Court constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In addition the government undertook to pay the applicant the sum of 24   195 EUR in respect of pecuniary damage. This sum was paid on 6 July 2007. No further individual measure was, therefore, deemed necessary by the Committee of Ministers.     II.   General measures   Under the friendly settlement agreement, the government undertook to seek during 2006 the adoption of a Law on Insurance and of a Law on the Compulsory Insurance of Vehicles; to conduct a policy oriented towards the protection and development of competition and limitation of monopolistic activities within the sphere of insurance; and to modify during 2006 section 38 of Law No. 970 of 24   July 1996 on Economic Courts. In December 2006, the Parliament adopted the Laws on Insurance and on the Compulsory Insurance of Vehicles. Article 38 of the Law on Economic Courts was repealed by Law No. 89-XVI of 5 April 2007 (in force since 27 April 2007).   Further, in the Code of Civil Procedure of 2003, the Prosecutor General’s power to challenge final judgments with requests for annulment was abolished.   The judgment was translated and published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Moldova and on the website of the Ministry of Justice ( http://www.justice.md ) and transmitted to the competent authorities.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent State   The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the Republic of Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in this case.