{"id":17630,"date":"2021-12-14T22:45:20","date_gmt":"2021-12-14T22:45:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17630"},"modified":"2021-12-14T22:45:20","modified_gmt":"2021-12-14T22:45:20","slug":"case-of-munteanu-v-the-republic-of-moldova-european-court-of-human-rights-522-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17630","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF MUNTEANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (European Court of Human Rights) 522\/13"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF MUNTEANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 522\/13)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n14 December 2021<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Munteanu v. the Republic of Moldova,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Ale\u0161 Pejchal, President,
\nBranko Lubarda,
\nPauliine Koskelo, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

the application (no.\u00a0522\/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 (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 29 November 2012 by a Moldovan national, Mr Petru Munteanu, born in 1950 and living in Chi\u0219in\u0103u (\u201cthe applicant\u201d) ;<\/p>\n

the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by their Agent, Mr M. Gurin and later by their Agent ad-interim Ms R. Revencu;<\/p>\n

the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n

1. The case concerns the non-enforcement of a final judgment.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s rights on account of the eight\u2011year delay in the enforcement. The courts awarded the applicant 20,000\u00a0Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 1,061.94 euros (EUR)) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage and rejected his claims for pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n

THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. DISJOINDER OF THE APPLICATION<\/p>\n

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.\u00a016000\/10 and 60 other applications, \u00a7 10, 1 September 2015) and declared the applications partially inadmissible.<\/p>\n

5. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other sixty and to examine it separately.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

6. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n

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, \u00a7\u00a7 39-40, 27 January 2009).<\/p>\n

8. The domestic courts acknowledged the breach of the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

9. The use of the remedy under Law No. 87 did not result in adequate redress: the judgment of 12\u00a0November\u00a02003 has not been enforced to date and the applicant never recovered the money awarded to him by that judgment.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a01 to the Convention.<\/p>\n

III. OTHER COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n

12. The applicant also complained under Article 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length and ineffectiveness of the remedy under Law No.\u00a087. 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\u2019s 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 C\u00e2mpeanu v.\u00a0Romania [GC], no.\u00a047848\/08, \u00a7\u00a0156, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

13. The applicant claimed USD 80,000 (equivalent to EUR 71,759.20) in respect of pecuniary damage, representing roughly the judgment debt (USD\u00a030,207.87, 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.<\/p>\n

14. The Government submitted that the claims for pecuniary damage were unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n

15. Making its own assessment, the Court awards the applicant EUR\u00a045,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s claims in full in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage (Botezatu v. the Republic of Moldova, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 38-41).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Disjoins the application from the others to which it was joined;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

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;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints;<\/p>\n

5. Holds<\/p>\n

(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:<\/p>\n

(i) EUR 45,000 (forty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Ale\u0161 Pejchal
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n

Facebook<\/a>Twitter<\/a>LinkedIn<\/a>Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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,…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17630","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17630"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17630\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17631,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17630\/revisions\/17631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}