{"id":18147,"date":"2022-03-01T19:19:59","date_gmt":"2022-03-01T19:19:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=18147"},"modified":"2022-03-01T19:19:59","modified_gmt":"2022-03-01T19:19:59","slug":"case-of-balan-v-the-republic-of-moldova-european-court-of-human-rights-17947-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=18147","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BALAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (European Court of Human Rights) 17947\/13"},"content":{"rendered":"

SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF BALAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 17947\/13)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 March 2022<\/p>\n

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

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

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

Egidijus K\u016bris, President,
\nPauliine Koskelo,
\nGilberto Felici, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having regard to:<\/p>\n

the application (no.\u00a017947\/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 1\u00a0March\u00a02013 by a Moldovan national, Mr Petru Balan, born in 1937 and living in Chi\u0219in\u0103u (\u201cthe applicant\u201d) ;<\/p>\n

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Moldovan Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0M.\u00a0Gurin and later by their Agent Mr O.\u00a0Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;<\/p>\n

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

Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2022,<\/p>\n

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

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

1. The present case concerns the quashing of a final court judgment by admitting an appeal lodged outside the legal time-limit.<\/p>\n

2. On 8 October 2010 the R\u00ee\u0219cani District Court awarded the applicant 360,018.80 Moldovan lei (equivalent to 21,715 euros) as compensation of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses resulted from losing 70% of his labour capacity in a labour accident. The judgment became final by non\u2011appeal on 28 October 2010. However, on 30 January 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appellate judgment which had admitted an appeal lodged outside the legal time-limit and had rejected the applicant\u2019s claims in full.<\/p>\n

3. The applicant complained of a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n

4. Following the communication of the case, on 9 November 2016 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request of the Government Agent to reopen domestic proceedings and acknowledged the violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of the applicant on the account of the irregular quashing of the judgment in his favour after a time-barred appeal had been upheld. The court reheard the case, rejected the time-barred appeal and finally upheld the judgment from 8\u00a0October 2010 in the applicant\u2019s favour. The court ordered the Government Agent to settle the claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

5. The Government subsequently informed the Court about their unsuccessful attempts to reach a friendly settlement.<\/p>\n

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

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

7. The general principles concerning the irregular quashing of final court judgments have been summarized in Popov v. Moldova (no. 2) (no. 19960\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 27-29, 6 December 2005), Melnic v. Moldova (no. 6923\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 38-44, 14\u00a0November 2006) and Istrate v. Moldova (no. 53773\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 46-61, 13\u00a0June\u00a02006).<\/p>\n

8. The Supreme Court of Justice acknowledged the breach of the applicant\u2019s rights due to the irregular quashing of the judgment in his favour. The Court sees no reason to disagree with that finding. Nevertheless, after making that finding, the Supreme Court of Justice did not award the applicant any compensation and no subsequent arrangement for a compensation had been reached by the Government. Therefore, the applicant has not been able to obtain any redress in respect of the abusive quashing of the judgment in his favour and his inability to receive the disability compensation from 2013 to 2016.<\/p>\n

9. 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

10. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

11. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.<\/p>\n

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

1. Declares the complaints concerning Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible;<\/p>\n

2. 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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 March 2022, 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 \u00a0Egidijus K\u016bris
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n

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

SECOND SECTION CASE OF BALAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 17947\/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Balan 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-18147","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\/18147","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=18147"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18147\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18148,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18147\/revisions\/18148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}