FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27303/04 by Dumitru APOSTOL against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall , President , Mr G. Bonello , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 June 2004,

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 parties ’ formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dumitru Apostol, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1938 and lives in V a ratic. He was represented before the Court by Mr V ictor Marcu, a lawyer practising in Edine ţ . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.

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

In 194 1 the applicant ’ s parents were persecuted by the communist authorities . Their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Siberia .

In 1991 they were rehabilitated.

On an unspecified date in November 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Râşcani Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his parents ’ property.

On 22 December 2003 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”) to pay him 432,619 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 26 ,417 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.

Since the District Court ordered the Ministry to pay compensation whereas the Râşcani Department of Finances had been a party to the proceedings, the Ministry lodged an appeal against the judgment of 22 December 2003 only on 30 June 2004.

On 21 October 2004 the Bălţi Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of the Râşcani District Court of 22 December 2003 and ordered a re-trial of the case before the first-instance court.

On 18 March 2005 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay him MDL 260,165 (the equivalent of EUR 15 , 426 at the time) in compensation for the confiscated property. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this judgment and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.

On 15 May 2006 the applicant sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff. The final judgment of 18 March 2005 has not been enforced to date.

COMPLAINTS

1. In his initial application, the applicant complained that the non-enforcement of the final judgment in his favour of 22 December 2003 had violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. On 21 June 2006 the applicant submitted that there had been a breach of the principle of legal certainty, as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention , as a result of the quashing by the Bălţi Court of Appeal on 21 October 2004 of a final judgment in his favour .

3. On 21 June 2006 he also submitted that the judgment of 18 March 2005 had not been enforced either.

THE LAW

On 27 July and 29 August 2007 the Court received from the parties two declarations according to which the Government had undertaken to pay the applicant, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, EUR 15 , 426 with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the present case. In return, the applicant accepted the proposal and waived any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to the present application.

The Court takes note of the declarations signed by 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). 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.

T.L. Early J ose p Casadevall Registrar President