Svetlana LAZO v Moldova - 45602/07 [2010] ECHR 477 (16 March 2010)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Svetlana LAZO v Moldova - 45602/07 [2010] ECHR 477 (16 March 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/477.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 477 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 45602/07 by Svetlana LAZO against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Nicolas Bratza, President, Lech Garlicki, Ljiljana Mijović, David Thór Björgvinsson, Ján Šikuta, Päivi Hirvelä, Mihai Poalelungi, judges, Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 October 2007, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 March 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply thereto, Having regard to the additional declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Svetlana Lazo, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1956 and lives in Chişinău. She is represented before the Court by Ms J. Hanganu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant initiated proceedings against her employer, the Ministry of Education, seeking reinstatement in her position and pecuniary damage for the period of forced inactivity. By a final judgment dated 23 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the employer to reinstate her. It also awarded her 19,365 Moldovan lei (MDL) in pecuniary damage, MDL 1,383 in non-pecuniary damage and MDL 681 for costs and expenses (the overall award’s equivalent in euro (EUR) was 1,273 at the time). Despite attempts by the applicant to obtain enforcement, the final judgment in her favour was not enforced until 1 August 2008. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to court had been violated by the late enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. The applicant also alleged that the late enforcement of the final judgment in her favour had violated her right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant also alleged that she did not have at her disposal an effective remedy for her complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW By letter of 20 November 2008 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the final judgment in her favour had been enforced in several instalments on 14 December 2007 (MDL 3,524), 23 January 2008 (MDL 11,997 and MDL 9,771), 5 February 2008 (MDL 11,299) and 1 August 2008 (MDL 1,383). In addition, she informed the Court that on 7 December 2007 the Buiucani District Court had examined the applicant’s claims concerning compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from the non-enforcement of the judgment of 23 May 2007 and had awarded her MDL 17,923 in pecuniary damage, MDL 7,000 in non-pecuniary damage and MDL 7,000 for costs and expenses ( the overall award’s equivalent in euro (EUR) was 1,839 at the time ). The applicant maintained her claims concerning non-pecuniary damage arising from the late enforcement of the final judgment in her favour. However, she acknowledged that the amount of compensation should be reduced on account of the full enforcement of the final judgment. By letter of 19 February 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention and that compensation for non-pecuniary damage had to be paid to the applicant. The Government offered to pay EUR 400, requesting the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. By letter of 3 April 2009 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. On 11 May 2009 the Court communicated an additional complaint raised by the applicant under Article 13 of the Convention. By letter of 15 June 2009 the Government disputed the fact that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. However, by letter of 28 October 2009 the Government amended the previous declaration by acknowledging in addition a breach of Article 13 of the Convention. The Court recalls 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”. It also recalls 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. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations of 19 February and 28 October 2009, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic (see Ungureanu v. Moldova , no. 27568/02, § 39, 6 September 2007) , 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 ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations of 19 February and 28 October 2009; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/477.html