Last Updated on December 14, 2021 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MUNTEANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 522/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 December 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Munteanu v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Branko Lubarda,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 522/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 November 2012 by a Moldovan national, Mr Petru Munteanu, born in 1950 and living in Chișinău (“the applicant”) ;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr M. Gurin and later by their Agent ad-interim Ms R. Revencu;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the non-enforcement of a final judgment.
2. On 12 November 2003 the applicant obtained a final court judgment obliging a private company to pay him 30,207.87 US dollars. The judgment is not enforced to date.
3. The applicant initiated proceedings against the Ministry of Finance in accordance with Law No. 87, claiming compensation for non-enforcement. On 12 March 2014 by a final judgment the Supreme Court of Justice acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights on account of the eight‑year delay in the enforcement. The courts awarded the applicant 20,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 1,061.94 euros (EUR)) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and rejected his claims for pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. DISJOINDER OF THE APPLICATION
4. In view of similar complaints on the delay in the enforcement of final judgments, in 2015 the Court decided to join this application with sixty others (see Ialtexgal Aurica S.A. and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), nos. 16000/10 and 60 other applications, § 10, 1 September 2015) and declared the applications partially inadmissible.
5. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other sixty and to examine it separately.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
6. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
7. The general principles concerning the non-enforcement of final court judgments against private debtors have been summarised in Cebotari and Others v. Moldova (nos. 37763/04 and 4 others, §§ 39-40, 27 January 2009).
8. The domestic courts acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s right to have the judgment of 12 November 2003 enforced within a reasonable time due to the inaction of the bailiff. The Court sees no reason to disagree with that finding. Nevertheless, after making that finding, the domestic courts failed to award the applicant any compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered, rejecting those claims as unsubstantiated, and only awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
9. The use of the remedy under Law No. 87 did not result in adequate redress: the judgment of 12 November 2003 has not been enforced to date and the applicant never recovered the money awarded to him by that judgment.
10. For these reasons, the Court considers that the applicant did not lose his victim status and that the Government have not put forward any argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
11. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the inactivity of the bailiff engaged the State responsibility for the non-enforcement of the judgment debt against a private company. Therefore, the failure by the State authorities to take appropriate measures in order to have the judgment in favour of the applicant enforced constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
III. OTHER COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant also complained under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length and ineffectiveness of the remedy under Law No. 87. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application. It thus considers that the applicant’s remaining complaints are admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The applicant claimed USD 80,000 (equivalent to EUR 71,759.20) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing roughly the judgment debt (USD 30,207.87, equivalent to EUR 27,096.20), which the domestic courts refused to award to him and the default interest (USD 53,726). The applicant claimed EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and made no claims in respect of costs and expenses.
14. The Government submitted that the claims for pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated.
15. Making its own assessment, the Court awards the applicant EUR 45,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
16. Taking into account the amount already received by the applicant at domestic level and the amount awarded by the Court in analogous cases, the Court grants the applicant’s claims in full in respect of non‑pecuniary damage (Botezatu v. the Republic of Moldova, cited above, §§ 38-41).
17. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined;
2. Declares the application admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 45,000 (forty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan Bakırcı Aleš Pejchal
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply