SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 56510/09 N.A. and Others against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 December 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President, Valeriu Griţco , Pauliine Koskelo , judges, and Hasan Bakırcı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 October 2009,

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

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari . The applicants were represented by M. Cebotari .

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

After obtaining refugee status on the territory of Moldova the applicants applied for travel documents. Since the authorities failed to deliver them such documents on the ground that the State had not yet had them printed, the applicants initiated court actions against them. By a final judgment of 8 April 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the applicants’ action and ordered the relevant authorities to issue them with the requested travel documents.

The above judgment was enforced in respect of the first, second and fourth applicants only on 25 February 2016. The third applicant obtained Moldovan nationality on 27 June 2011.

relevant legal framework

According to Law no. 87 of 21 April 2011, anyone who considers him or herself to be a victim of a breach of the right to have a case examined or a final judgment enforced within a reasonable time is entitled to apply to a court for the acknowledgement of such a breach and claim compensation. According to section 1 of the law, the law should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the national law, the Convention and the Court’s case-law. According to section 4 of the law the courts are obliged to deal with applications lodged under the law within three months.

Section 5 of the law states that if a breach of the right to have a case examined or a final judgment enforced within a reasonable time is found by a court, compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses have to be awarded to the applicant.

Section 6 of the law simplifies the procedure of enforcement of judgments adopted under the law so as no further applications or formalities should be required from the part of the applicants.

Under section 7 of the law all individuals who have complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in domestic courts within six months of the entry into force of the new law, provided that the European Court has not ruled on the admissibility and merits of the complaint.

COMPLAINTS

In view of the late enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice in their favour, the applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 that their rights to respect for their private and family life and their freedom of movement were breached.

THE LAW

The applicants complained of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 8. Right to respect for private and family life

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Freedom of movement

“1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of public order, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas , to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.”

The Government argued that the application should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the remedy provided for by Law No. 87.

The applicants did not comment on the above objection but argued that there had been a breach of their rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

The Court notes that the documents in its possession do not contain any indication that the applicants had initiated domestic proceedings in accordance with Law No. 87.

It reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right – usually through the courts – the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Balan v. Moldova , 44746/08, ( dec. ), 24 January 2012).

Since the applicants failed to avail themselves of the remedy provided by Law No. 87, the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 January 2021 .

Hasan Bakırcı Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No.

Applicant’s Name

Birth year

Nationality

Place of residence

1N . A .

1967Palestinian

Chişinău

2M . A .

1973Sudanese

Hârtopul Mic

3M . E .

1968Moldovan, Sudanese

Hulboaca

4W . S .

1972Iraqi

Chişinău