SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 70038/14 BUSINESS-INVESTIÈšII PENTRU TOÈšI S.A. and LUX EDEM CONSULTING S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President, Carlo Ranzoni, Pauliine Koskelo, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 October 2014,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Business- Investiții pentru Toți S.A. and Lux Edem Consulting S.R.L., are two companies incorporated in Moldova. They were represented before the Court by Ms I. Soțchi , a lawyer practising in Chișinău .

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning the unfairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice, were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).

After the communication, the Government initiated revision proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice with a view to remedying the situation complained about by the applicants. By a judgment of 31 July 2019, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Government ’ s revision request and quashed the judgment which served as a basis for the alleged violation and acknowledged a breach of the applicants ’ rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Supreme Court also ordered a fresh examination of the case. By its subsequent final judgment of 18 December 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts ’ judicial decisions in the applicants ’ favour.

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the complaints in the present application.

The declaration provided that the Government acknowledged the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They also noted that as a result of the revision procedure initiated by them, the Supreme Court had remedied the situation complained about by the applicants. The Government further offered to pay the applicants, jointly, 2,700 euros (EUR) (two thousand and seven hundred euros) to cover pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, would be free of any taxes that may be applicable and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision. In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

Therefore, the Government invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

By a letter of 20 July 2020, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in the part covered by the unilateral declaration of the Government (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the complaint (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application in the part covered by the Government ’ s unilateral declaration out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

The applicant s also complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of two final domestic judgments in their favour, in accordance with which two private companies were obliged to pay the applicants different amounts of money. The applicants alleged that the non-enforcement was due to the fact that during the proceedings leading to the adoption of those judgments, the domestic courts had failed to sequester some of the defendants ’ property.

The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, it is ill-founded. It notes that the main issue raised by the applicants is not the failure of the enforcement authorities to discharge their duties but rather the failure of the courts to seize property belonging to the defendant companies during the court proceedings. Even assuming that the domestic courts had such an obligation, the applicants did not adduce any evidence to prove that that the court decisions to not sequester property were arbitrary at the material time and that they had adduced sufficient pertinent evidence to convince the courts on the necessity to seize the property in question.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 April 2021 .

Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda Acting Deputy Registrar President