FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 757/04 by Andrei DRUTA against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J. Casadevall , President , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä , judges , and Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 2003 ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrei Druţă , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1987 and lives in Chişinău . He wa s represented before the Court by his parents P. and L. Druţă . 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 14 August 2002 the applicant, who was fifteen years old at the time, was travelling by train to Bucharest , Romania . His final destination s w ere Hungary , Germany and Switzerland , where he was supposed to participate in a dance tournament. He was un accompanied and had a valid Moldovan passport with visas for the countries of destination and a declaration by his parents, made before a notary, by which he was authorised to travel abroad by himself.

At the Ungheni border-crossing between Moldova and Romania , he was stopped by the border police and refused leave to cross on the ground that he was not accompanied by his parents. He had to get a lift from a passing car to get home.

On an unspecified date the app licant ’ s parents wrote to the Department of Border Police and asked for an account of the refusal to let their son cross the border.

On 3 October 2002 the Department of Border Police wrote to the applicant ’ s parents informing them that , according to Article 5 of the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Romania regarding migration of 29 June 2001, a minor could cross the border only if accompanied by his parents or legal representative.

The applicant ’ s parents disagreed with the Department of Border Police ’ s interpretation of the treaty and initiated a court action in which t he y claimed pecuniary compensation for the ir son ’ s lost opportunity to take part in the dance tournament. The y argued that he had previously travelled by himself on the basis of a declaration made by them and that the actions of the border police had been abusive.

On 2 April 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal found in favour of the applicant ’ s parents , interpreting the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Romania as permitting the applicant, who had a valid passport, to travel unattended between the two countries. It also awarded the applicant MDL 519 for pecuniary damage. The Department of Border Police appealed against the judgment.

On 4 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal, giving a different interpretation to the bilateral treaty. According to it, a minor could never travel to Romania unaccompanied .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair since the Supreme Court of Justice misinterpreted the provisions of the bilateral treaty between Moldova and Romania .

2. The applicant also argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 4 June 2003 was not pronounced publicly.

3. He also complained under p aragraph 2 of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that he was not allowed to lea ve his country.

THE LAW

On 20 J une 200 6 the Court communicated the present case to the Government and invited the applicant to appoint a representative by 1 August 2006 . Having received no reply, by a registered letter of 13 September 200 6 the Registry of the Court pointed out to the applicant that the deadline for appointing a representative had expired and invited him repeatedly to appoint a representative by 11 December 2006. The Registry also warned the applicant that in the absence of a reply the Court may infer that he had lost interest in the case and did not intend to pursue it . The applicant received that letter but did not reply.

In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, the Court now considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application. 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 Josep Casadevall              Deputy Registrar President