FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 3870/05 by Ion SAMOTIUC against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 December 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 Ion Samotiuc , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1944 and lives 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 9 the applicant and his family had been the subject of persecution by the communist authorities . Without being tried, their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Kurgan ( Russian Federation ) in cattle wagons. They were obliged to work in inhuman conditions 12-16 hours per day without any days off.

In 1958 they were released and in 1989 they were rehabilitated.

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Edine ţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscated property.

On 25 September 2003 the Edine ţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay him 30,000 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 1 , 9 50 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.

On 22 June 2004 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 September 2003 .

The judgment has not been enforced to date.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 25 September 2003 .

2 . He also complained under Article 4 of the Convention that he had been subjected to forced labour .

3. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unlawful detention between 1949 and 1958.

4. He further submitted a complaint under Article 7 of the Convention about his unlawful conviction in 1949.

5. He also invoked Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention alleging that he had been forcibly expelled from Moldova in 1949.

6. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention about not having been compensated for his unlawful conviction.

THE LAW

On 10 April and 8 May 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, MDL 30,000 and EUR 1 , 5 30 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 Nicolas Bratza Registrar President