FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5505/04 by Hristo HRISTOV against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 March 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 20 January 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Hristo Hristov , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Sofia . He was repres ented before the Court by Mr I. Tsolov , a lawyer practising in Vulc ă ne ş ti . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vitalie Pârlog .

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

On 21 October 1997 the applicant was detained at the customs while entering Moldova and charged with illegal possession of foreign currency.

On 18 November 1997 the Vulc ă ne ş ti District Court found the applicant guilty of committing an administrative offence, fined him 18 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 3.85 United States dollars (USD) at the time) and ordered the confiscation of the foreign currency in his possession in the amount of USD 4,000.

On 15 December 1998 the Cahul Regional Court upheld the applicant ’ s appeal, quashed the judgment of the Vulc ă ne ş ti District Court of 18 November 1997 and discontinued the proceedings against him.

The applicant initiated proceedings for the restitution of the confiscated money against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”). On 3 November 2000 the Vulc ă ne ş ti District Court ordered the Ministry to pay back the applicant the confisc ated money in the amount of MDL 49,160.80 (the equivalent of USD 4,000 at the time). It also issued an enforcement warrant. The Ministry did not appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable.

On 30 November and 6 December 2000 the Vulc ă ne ş ti District Court sent the enforcement warrant to the Bailiff of the Râşcani District Court for enforcement.

Following the communication of the present case to the Government, on 19 December 2005, the applicant received MDL 49,160.80 from the Ministry.

COMPLAINTS

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 3 November 2000 .

The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 3 November 2000 had violated his right to property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

THE LAW

On 22 December 2005 and 2 March 2006 the Court received from the Moldovan Government two unilateral declaration s . They informed the Court that the Ministry had already paid the applicant his money. On 2 February 2005 and 11 April 2006 the Court transmitted the declarations to the applicant, who was invited to submit his written comments by 2 March 2005 and 23 May 2006 respectively. Having received no reply, by two registered letters of 21 November 2006 the Court pointed out to the applicant and to his lawyer that the deadline for submitting comments had expired and warned them that, no extension of the time-limit having been requested, the Court might decide to strike the case out of its list. The applicant and his lawyer received those letters but did not reply.

In the light of the above, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court 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 or its Protocols 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 Court ’ s 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