CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   249 18.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PRODAN v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Prodan v. Moldova (application no. 49806/99).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), by six votes to one, the Court awarded the applicant 11,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The Court further held, by six votes to one, that the application of Article 41 - concerning the failure to restore one of the apartments in the case (apartment no. 8) to the applicant - was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Tatiana Prodan, is a Moldovan national, born in 1924 and living in Chişinău, Moldova.   On 14 March 1997 Centru District Court ordered the restitution to the applicant of her parent’s home, nationalised in 1946, which had been split up into six apartments. The court declared null and void the sale agreements concerning five of the apartments and ordered the eviction of the tenants in all six.   On 3 October 2000 the district court decided partially to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 1997 and ordered the Municipal Council to pay the applicant 488,274 Moldovan Lei (MDL), the market value of the apartments which had been sold: nos. 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13.   In 2001 the applicant asked the Housing Division of the Municipal Council to execute the judgment of 14 March 1997 insofar as it concerned the eviction of the tenants in the apartment which had not been sold (no. 8). However, the Municipal Council informed the applicant that, due to a lack of funds for the construction of apartment buildings and available alternative accommodation for the evicted tenants, it could not enforce the judgment.   The applicant lodged a fresh request for the enforcement of the judgments of 14 March   1997 and 3   October   2000. However, the Municipal Council informed her that, due to a lack of funds and alternative accommodation for the occupants of apartment 8, it could not enforce the judgment of 14 March 1997. As regards the enforcement of the judgment of 3   October   2000, the Municipal Council replied that the money would be paid after other court orders had been paid.   On 20   November   2002 the Municipal Council paid the applicant MDL   488,274 (the equivalent of EUR 29,238 at the time) in accordance with the judgment of 3 October 2000. The judgment of 14   March   1997, in respect of the eviction of the tenants from apartment 8, was not enforced.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 5 January 1999 and declared admissible on 7 January 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the failure to enforce the judgments of 14 March 1997 and 3 October 2000 was in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 The Court reiterated that the right to a fair hearing under the European Convention on Human Rights would be illusory if the legal system in States which had ratified the Convention allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants – fair, public and expeditious proceedings – without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions. To construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court had therefore to be regarded as an integral part of the “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6.   It was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds and available alternative accommodation as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment might be justified in particular circumstances. But the delay could not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 §   1. The applicant should not have been prevented from benefiting from the success of the litigation, which initially concerned the eviction of the occupants from all the apartments and, later, the award of the market value of apartments 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13 and the eviction of the occupants from apartment 8.   The Court noted that Centru District Court’s judgment of 14   March   1997 remained un-enforced in respect of apartments 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13 for 29 months and in respect of apartment 8 for 63 months (until the present date). In respect of the judgment of 3   October 2000, the Court noted that it remained un-enforced for 22 months.   The Court also noted that it was enforced only after the applicant’s case before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated to the Moldovan Government.   By failing for years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judicial decisions in the case, the Moldovan authorities had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The impossibility for the applicant to obtain the execution of the judgment of 14 March 1997 until 10 January 2001 in respect of apartments 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13, and until the present date in respect of apartment 8, constituted an interference with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. The impossibility for the applicant to obtain the execution of the judgment of 3 October 2000 in respect of the award of the market value of apartments 3, 6, 7, 12 and 13 at least until 20   November 2002, had also to be regarded as an interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   By failing to comply with the judgments of Centru District Court, the national authorities prevented the applicant from receiving the money she could reasonably have expected to receive and from having the occupants evicted. The Moldovan Government had not provided any justification for this interference. Finding that a lack of funds and of available alternative accommodation could not justify such an omission, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.     Judge Pavlovschi expressed a partly dissenting opinion [pr1] , which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).       Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. [pr1] In the original text it was "a partly concurring and partly dissenting". I've changed it to only "partly dissenting" since that's how it appears to be on the PowerDocs.