LUNGU v. MOLDOVA
Doc ref: 33072/05 • ECHR ID: 001-86144
Document date: April 1, 2008
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33072/05 by Dora LUNGU against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza , President, Giovanni Bonello , Stanislav Pavlovschi , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 September 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 Dora Lungu , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1936 and lives in T â rnova . She was represented before the Court by Mr V. Zama, a lawyer practising in Chi ş in ă u . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu .
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows.
In 194 5 the applicant ’ s parents were persecuted by the communist authorities and their property was confiscated.
In the early 1990s they were rehabilitated.
On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant initiated court proceedings against the Edi ne ţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of her parents ’ property.
On 24 April 2001 the DonduÅŸeni District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her 87 , 177 Moldovan lei (MDL) ( 7 ,531 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.
On 5 July 2001 a bailiff received the enforcement warrant.
Despite numerous complaints lodged by the applicant with different State authorities, the judgment of 24 April 2001 has still not been enforced.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 24 April 2001 .
The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 24 April 2001 had violated her right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 10 October and 16 November 2007 the parties submitted to the Court signed declarations accepting a friendly-settlement agreement, according to which the Government had offered
“ to pay MDL 179,042 ( one hundred and seventy-nine thousand and forty two ) (a pprox . EUR 10 , 831 ) and EUR 2,000 ( two thousand) to M s Dora Lungu with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
These sums, which are to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sum in euros will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. The sums will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay the sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. “
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 reason to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
FatoÅŸ Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
