FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 37510/05 by Galina TELEBA against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Mihai Poalelungi , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a f riendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Galina Teleba , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1967 and lives in Drochia . She was represented before the Court by Mr V . Iordachi , a lawyer practising in Chişinău . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Draganesti Local Council seeking the allocation of a parcel of land of 4.8 hectares, in accordance with the Land Code.

By a final judgment of 17 September 2001 the Sangerei District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Draganesti Local Council to allocate her the parcel sought.

The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant and formally requested that the judgment be enforced; however, it has not been enforced due to lack of available land in the village.

On 31 October 2002 a bailiff in charge of the case requested the Sangerei District Court to modify the method of enforcement of the judgment of 17 September 2001 and that the applicant be paid money in lieu of the land.

On 13 February 2003 the Sangerei District Court ordered that the applicant be paid the value of the land in the amount of 102,841.05 Moldovan lei.

The judgment of 17 September 2001, as modified on 13 February 2003, has not been enforced to date.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court was violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 17 September 2001 .

2 . The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 17 September 2001 violated her right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

On 1 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government and the applicant :

“ 1. The Government undertake to pay the applicant, with a view to settling the case, a sum of 14,000 euros (EUR) to cover pecuniary damage and EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage, within three months from the date on which the Court will pronounce a decision in the [present case].

2. The payment of the above amounts will constitute a full and final settlement of the case.

3. The applicant shall declare her claims satisfied and shall withdraw her application [...] from the Court.

4. The applicant declares that she will not have any further pecuniary, non-pecuniary, or other claims against the Government in connection with the present case.

5. The parties shall inform the Court about the present agreement and request that the case be struck out of the list of cases. ”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President