FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 21118/03 by Vladimir GROSU and Others against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

S ir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr L. Garlicki, Mr J. Å ikuta ,

Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges [1] , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 April 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 regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Vladimir, Aurelia, Sergiu, Rodica and Lucia Grosu , are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1975 , 1950, 1973, 1975 and 1972 respectively and live in Chişinău. They were represented before the Court by Mr E. Osmochescu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. P ârlog .

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

Mr Dumitru Grosu is the husband of the second applicant, the father of the first and the third applicants and the father-in-law of the fourth and the fifth applicants. He worked as a judge for twenty-nine years. In 1999 he resigned due to a serious disability.

According to the applicants, Article 33 (2) (b) of the Law 544-XIII provided at the material time for compensation to be paid to the family of a judge in the case of the latter ’ s disability.

The applicants accordingly applied to the Ministry of Finance for compensation. The Ministry of Finance refused to pay the compensation, on the ground that it did not have money for that purpose.

In 2001 the applicants initiated civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice. In those proceedings they were plaintiffs and the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice were defendants.

On 27 February 2001 the Chişinău District Court found in favour of the applicants and ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay Mr Dumitru Grosu 257,874.15 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of a pprox imately 22,466 euros (EUR) at the time).

The Ministry of Finance appealed against that decision, but the appeal was rejected by the Chişinău Regional Court on 13 June 2001 .

On 11 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in cassation lodged by the Ministry of Finance and the decision of the Chişinău District Court of 27 February 2001 became final and enforceable.

In September 2002 the Prosecutor General ’ s Office filed with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for the annulment of the decisions of the Chişinău District Court of 27 February 2001, the Chişinău Regional Court of 13 June 2001 and the Court of Appeal of 11 April 2002.

On 9 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General ’ s request for annulment and quashed all the decisions on the ground that there was no causal link between Dumitru Grosu ’ s disability and his work as a judge. By the same decision the Supreme Court of Justice found in favour of the Ministry of Finance and dismissed the applicants ’ action .

F ollowing the communication of the present case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General ’ s Office to apply to the Supreme Court of Justice for the revision of its judgment of 9 October 200 2 . On 6 May 2004, the Prosecutor General ’ s Office lodged a revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice in accordance with Article 449 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure .

On 6 October 200 4 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General ’ s revision request, quashed all the previous judgment s and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings.

The re-opened proceedings ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 4 May 2005, by which the applicants ’ action was dismissed.

On 14 March 2006 the first applicant lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a revision request against the judgment of the Supreme Court of 4 May 2005.

On 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the first applicant ’ s revision request, quashed all the judgments which followed after 11 April 2002 and discontinued the request for annulment proceedings. The Supreme Court found that there had been a breach of the applicants ’ rights under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of the re-opening of the proceedings which ended with the final judgment of 11 April 2002. It awarded the applicants MDL 168,477 (EUR 10,671) as default interest for the impossibility to use the money, EU R 9,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing of the final judgment of 27 February 2001 as a result of the Prosecutor General ’ s request for annulment .

THE LAW

Article 37 of the Convention, as far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved...”

Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as far as relevant, reads as follows:

“ 1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases in accordance wit h Article 37 of the Convention....”

On 3 May 2006 the applicants informed the Court about the outcome of the proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 22 March 2006. Since the Supreme Court had awarded them compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses, they requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.

On 26 June 2006 the Government informed the Court that the applicants had been paid all the amounts indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court of 22 March 2006 and the basic amount indicated in the judgment of 27 February 2001. They also sent the Court the relevant receipts proving the payments. They requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application since the matter before it has been resolved. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued.

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

[1] Judge Pavlovschi, the judge elected in respect of Moldova, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court) after it had been notified to the Government. On 12 March 2007, the Government, pursuant to Rule 29 § 1 (a), informed the Court that they were content to appoint in his stead another elected judge and left the choice of appointee to the President of the Chamber. On the same date the President appointed Judge Šikuta to sit in the case.