LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF GIRLEA v. MOLDOVA
Doc ref: 33358/06, 18008/09, 22923/09, 36981/07, 38119/07, 38741/08, 41590/08, 44201/06, 49247/09, 50214/09, ... • ECHR ID: 001-110774
Document date: April 10, 2012
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
CASE OF GIRLEA v. MOLDOVA
Doc ref: 33358/06, 18008/09, 22923/09, 36981/07, 38119/07, 38741/08, 41590/08, 44201/06, 49247/09, 50214/09, ... • ECHR ID: 001-110774
Document date: April 10, 2012
Cited paragraphs only
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33358/06 Victor GÃŽ RLEA against Moldova and 13 other applications (see list appended )
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Ineta Ziemele , Mihai Poalelungi , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above applications lodged between 27 July 2006 and 1 November 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants , referred to in the annexed table , are private academic institutions registered in Moldova and Moldovan nationals except Mr Lîsenco who is a Ukrainian national. They lodged their applications between 27 July 2006 and 1 November 2009. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent , Mr V. Grosu. The Ukrainian Government were informed of their right to intervene in the application no. 18008/09 , but did not avail themselves of that right.
2. All the applicants obtained final judgments in their favour. E nforcement warrants were issued. Some of these final judgments have not been enforced to date , either fully or in part , whereas others have been enforced with delay (see attached table).
3. On 1 July 2011 a new law (Law No. 87) entered into force , instituting a remedy against the problem of non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and against the problem of unreasonable length of proceedings.
4. On 29 September 2011 the Court informed the applicants of the new remedy , asking whether they intended to make use of it within the six ‑ month time-limit set by Law No. 87. The applicants ’ attention was drawn to the fact that according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention , the Court may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that failure to observe the above rule could constitute a reason for declaring the applications inadmissible.
5. The applicants informed the Court in response that they were not intending to use the new remedy because it was not effective.
THE LAW
6. Relying on various provisions of the Convention (see attached table), the applicants complained that the State had failed to ensure the enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour.
7. The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications.
8. The Court further notes that in the present cases the applicants decided not to use the new remedy , disputing its effectiveness. In this respect the Court recalls that in Balan v. Moldova ((dec.) , no. 44746/08 , 24 January 2012) , it has held that the new remedy introduced by Law No. 87 was designed to address the issue of delayed enforcement of judgments and that it was not ineffective. It was also held that in spite of the fact that the new remedy only became available after the introduction of that application , the applicant was obliged to use it and that using it did not constitute and excessive burden for the applicant and for other applicants in a similar position.
9. Having regard to its findings in Balan , cited above , the Court concludes that the applicants in the present cases were also required by Article 35 § 1 to avail themselves of the new domestic remedy by pursuing the domestic proceedings under Law No. 87. It notes , however , that such proceedings have not been completed by them.
10. It follows that the present applications, in so far as they concern alleged violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account on non-enforcement of final judgments must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies.
11. The Court has examined the remainder of the applicants ’ complaints as submitted by them (see attached table). However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its Protocols. It follows that the respective parts of the applications must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications ;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar President
ANNEX TABLE
No.
Application no. and date of lodging
Date of communication to the respondent Government
Applicant ’ s details
Final judgment
Issue
Communicated complaints
Other complaints
Date of the applicant ’ s letter concerning the new remedy
1.
33358/06, lodged on 27.07.2006
16.12.2008
Mr Victor GÃŽRLEA, born in 1948 and living in Rezina
Supreme Court of Justice, 1.02.2006
Partial enforcement
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
25.10.2011
2.
44201/06, lodged on 19.10.2006
20.01.2009
Mr Vladimir PANFIL, born in 1970 and living in Ialoveni
Ialoveni District Court, 4.11.1998
Partial enforcement
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1
n/a
5.11.2011
3.
36981/07, lodged on 9.08.2007
17.06.2010
Liceul Columna , Liceul Elitex , Liceul de Limbi Moderne si Management and Liceul International de Management Imi -Nova, private academic institutions registered in Moldova
Supreme Court of Justice, 7.03.2007
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1
n/a
20.10.2011
4.
38119/07, lodged on 13.08.2 007
06.05.2011
Mr Nicolae CHETREAN, date of birth unknown, living in BoÅŸcana
Ciocana District Court , 29.01.2001
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
20.10.2011
5.
5732/08, lodged on 18.01.2008
09.12.2008
Mr Dmitri ASTAÅžOV, born in 1970 and living in Donetsk
Chişinău Court of Appeal, 13.04.2004
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
Article 6 of the Convention (length of proceedings)
9.11.2011
6.
9205/08, lodged on 29.01.2008
10.10.2008
Mr Grigore GUŢULEAC, born in 1960 and living in Chişinău
Chişinău Court of Appeal, 14.12.2007
Partial enforcement
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
10.11.2011
7.
38741/08, lodged on 17.07.2008
15.03.2010
Ms Ana GHENCIU and Mr Dumitru GHENCIU, born in 1932 and 1929 respectively and living in Suric
Cimi ÅŸ lia District Court, 15.12.2005
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
10.11.2011
8.
41590/08, lodged on 20.08.2008
06.05.2011
Mr Andrei NICOLAESCU, born in 30.03.1965 and living in Costiujeni
Supreme Court of Justice, 20.03.2008
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
Article 6 of the Convention (alleged lack of reasons)
8.11.2011
9.
18 008/09, lodged on 19.03.2009
6.05.2011
Mr Igor LÎSENCO, Ukrainian national , and Mr Alexandru CRUCIC, Moldovan national, born on 27.06.1982 and 10.05.1974 respectively , living in Odessa and Chişinău respectively
Chişinău Court of Appeal , 18.10.2007
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
17.10.2011
10.
22923/09, lodged on 13.06.2009
25.05.2010
Ms Alexandra PAVLENCO, date of birth unknown, living in Chişinău
Rîscani District Court, 14.12.2002
Non-enforcement
Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
19.11.2011
1 1 .
49247/09, lodged on 26.08.2009
14.03.2011
Mr Ion LEVINŢ A, born in 1958 and living in Chişinău
Orhei District Court, 11.02.1998
Belated enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
20.10.2011
1 2 .
50214/09, lodged on 8.09.2009
14.03.2011
Mr Adrian CENUŞĂ, born in 1977 and living in Chişinău
Supreme Court of Justice, 16.09.2009
Belated enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
n/a
3.11.2011
13.
56223/09, lodged on 11.05.2009
14.03.2011
Mr Tudor CIORAP, born in 1965 and living in Chişinău
Supreme Court of Justice, 10.12.2008
Belated enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
Article 8 of the Convention
Received by the Court on 21.10.2011
14.
58514/09 , lodged on 01.11.2009
14.03.2011
Mr Vasile NOGAI , born in 1942 and liv ing in Chişinău
Supreme Court of Justice, 16.09.2009
Belated enforcement
Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No.1
Article 14 of the Convention
10.11.2011
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
