FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 251/05 by Ilarion CRECIUN against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 November 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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, M r Ilarion Creciun , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1938 and lives in Trinca . 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.

In 1949 the applicant and his family were deported by the Soviet authorities. All of the family ’ s assets were confiscated by the State.

On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of Soviet repression to claim their confiscated or nationalised property.

On an unknown date the applicant requested compensation for the property confiscated from his family. On 10 September 2003 the Edine ţ District Court found in his favour and awarded him 41,175 Moldovan lei (MDL)(the equivalent of 2,688 euros (EUR) at the time) to be paid from the State budget in the person of the Ministry of Finance. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.

On 22 December 2003 the applicant requested the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 23 December 2003 the Department replied that the applicant needed to submit the original copy of the enforcement warrant.

According to the applicant, he requested the Edine ţ District Court to issue him such a warrant but was told that there was no need for that since the court would send the warrant directly to the Department.

On 27 July 2005 the Edine ţ District Court adopted another decision on the same issue in proceedings involving the same parties. As in the 2003 proceedings, the court awarded the applicant the same amount (MDL 41,175) in compensation for the property taken from his family.

The judgment of 10 September 2003 has not been enforced to date.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article s 5 and 6 of the Convention and under unspecified Articles of Protocols Nos. 1 and 7 to the Convention about the above events .

THE LAW

On 22 March and 2 May 2007 the parties submitted to the Court signed declarations accepting a friendly settlement agreement, according to which the Government had undertaken to pay the applicant, within three months from the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, EUR 5,188 in respect of any damage suffered by the applicant and of any costs and expenses incurred by him in the proceedings before the Court. The parties declared that the agreement constituted a final resolution of the case and requested the Court to strike the application 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). 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 Nicolas Bratza Registrar President