THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 13431/06 Ana SCHERLET against the Republic of Moldova and 2 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 26 November 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Luis López Guerra, President, Nona Tsotsoria , Valeriu Griţco , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged between 21 March 2006 and 18 August 2007 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 November 2012 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

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

2 . The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, are set out in the appendix table and may be summarised as follows.

4 . The applicants obtained final court judgments in their favour, obliging local public authorities either to restitute unlawfully confiscated property or to provide them with social housing. Those judgments remain unenforced to date. Before the Court the applicants complained about the non-enforcement of those judgments.

5. The applicants complained about the failure to enforce the judgments in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

6 . The cases were communicated to the Government following the adoption of the pilot judgment in the case of Olaru and others ( Olaru and Others v. Moldova , nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009).

THE LAW

7 . The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications and examine them in a single decision.

8 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settl e ment, by a letter of 23 November 2012 , the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

9. In that declaration the Government acknowledged that the applicants had suffered a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a result of non-enforcement of the judicial decisions within a reasonable time. The Government proposed to pay each applicant a global sum of 3,600 euros (EUR) for non-enforcement periods from 86 to 122 months.

10 . T he awarded sum s , which are to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses will be converted into Moldovan Lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. They will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay th ese sum s within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them , from 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.

11 . The applicants did not submit any comments on the Government ’ s declaration.

12 . The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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 applications”.

13 . It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued.

14 . To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03).

15 . The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the Republic of Moldova, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in regard to the non-enforcement of final court judgments.

16 . Having regard to the nature of 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 (see, Olaru v. Moldova (just satisfaction), no. 476/07, §§ 14-19, 12 October 2010; Chetruş and 24 others v. Moldova ( dec. ), nos. 15953/07 et seq., 25 January 2011; Tudor Peciul and 9 others v. Moldova ( dec. ), nos. 15279/07 et seq., 7 September 2010; Modranga and others v. Moldova ( dec. ), nos. 33328/06 et seq., 4 June 2013; Antoci v. Moldova ( dec. ), no. 9209/08, 17 September 2013) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

17 . Moreover, in light of the above considerations and , in particular , given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

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

19 . As regards the question of implementation of the Government ’ s undertakings, the Committee of Ministers remains competent to supervise this matter in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention (see the Committee ’ s decisions of 3 June 2010 concerning the implementation of the Olaru and others judgment (see the Decision of the Committee of Ministers about the enforcement of the judgment of Olaru and others adopted at the 1136th DH Meeting on 6-8 March 2012, CM/Del/Dec(2012)1136/15 and the decision in Modranga and others , cited above).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Marialena Tsirli Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

No

Application No and date of lodging

Applicant ’ s details

Final judgment

Case details

13431/06 ,

21/03/2006

Ana SCHERLET ,

born on 7/09/1937

Moldovan national, living in Cismichioi

Cahul District Court, 11/08/2003

Restitution of unlawfully confiscated property located in Cahul

12755/07 ,

06/03/2007

Grigore OLISEVSCHI ,

born on 11/12/1955

Moldovan national, living in Chisinau

Centru District Court, 3/03/2004

Social housing case (military)

37259/07 ,

18/08/2007

Ghenadie VEVERITA ,

born on 07/11/1974

Moldovan national, living in Chisinau

Supreme Court of Justice, 16/08/2006

Social housing case (penitentiary officer)