SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34181/11 Victor ZAGREBELNII against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Carlo Ranzoni, President, Valeriu Griţco, Marko Bošnjak, judges,

and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2011,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 26 September 2013 and 3 October 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s replies to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Victor Zagrebelnii, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Cricova.

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

3. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention about the failure to summon him to a hearing before the first-instance court, which decided to suspend his driver’s license for six months, was communicated to the Government.

4. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the unlawful annulment of the driver’s licence deprived him of his means of existence, since he was a driver. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the outcome of proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective remedies to further appeal against the unfavourable outcome.

5. After the communication, the Government initiated revision proceedings before the Rîșcani District Court with a view to remedying the situation complained of by the applicant. By a decision of 24 July 2013, the Rîșcani District Court upheld the Government’s revision request and quashed the judgment which was rendered at a hearing to which the applicant had not been properly summoned. Rehearing the case in the applicant’s presence, the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the applicant as time-barred.

THE LAW

6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the complaint raised by the applicant in the present application.

7. In their unilateral declaration 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 Rîșcani District Court had remedied the situation complained of by the applicant. The Government also offered to pay the applicant 1,500 euros (EUR) (one thousand and five hundred euros) to cover 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.

8. 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.

9. By letters of 15 December 2013 and 12 November 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the proposed amount was insufficient to cover pecuniary damage and did not address his other complaints.

10. The Court reiterates 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 application”.

11. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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.

12. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).

13. 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 one’s right of access to a court, in particular the requirement of summoning the parties to the proceedings when the law provides for their right to be present at the hearing (see, for instance, Ziliberberg v. Moldova , no. 61821/00, §§ 37-42, 1 February 2005; Russu v. Moldova , no. 7413/05, §§ 19-28, 13 November 2008; Deli v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 42010/06, §§ 51-53, 22 October 2019).

14. Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the fact that the fresh examination of the applicant’s case initiated at the domestic level after the communication of the case to the Government resulted in a favourable outcome for the applicant, and taking into account the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

15. 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

16. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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).

17. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaint.

18. In respect of the remainder of the application, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.

19. 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 under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike that part of the application 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 16 December 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Hasan Bakırcı Carlo Ranzoni Deputy Registrar President