Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of European Court of Human Rights, September 20, 2011 (case CASE OF ULLENS DE SCHOOTEN AND REZABEK v. BELGIUM)
|Resolution Date:||September 20, 2011|
CASE OF VARTIC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
(Applications nos. 12674/07, 13012/07, 13339/07, 13355/07 and 13368/07)
20 September 2011
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Vartic and Others v. Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
The case originated in five applications (nos. 12674/07, 13012/07, 13339/07, 13355/07 and 13368/07) against the Republic of Moldova and Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by five Moldovan nationals, Mr Vasile Vartic, Mr Ion Ţurcan, Mr Ion Tudoreanu, Mrs Elena Cerneţchi and Mrs Elena Luniov ("the applicants"), on 3 and 15 January 2007, and on 1 March 2007.
The applicants were represented by Mr A. Bîzgu. The Moldovan Government ("the Government") were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicants alleged, in particular, that their right of access to a court and their right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated by a failure to enforce the final judgments in their favour.
By a partial decision on admissibility of 10 November 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the applications to the Moldovan Government, along the lines of the pilot judgment Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009, with regard to the alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. On the same date the Court decided to dismiss the remainder of the complaints, in so far as they were brought against Russian Federation, as inadmissible.
On 12 November 2010 and 20 March 2011 respectively the Government and the applicants submitted observations on admissibility and merits.
Thus, the Court decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants were born in 1970, 1961, 1959, 1965 and 1966 respectively and live in Chişinău.
As with the applicants in the pilot judgment of Olaru and others, cited above, the applicants in the instant cases complained of a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the authorities' failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by domestic courts in their favour.
Application no. 12674/07
By a final judgment of 27 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Vartic and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide him with accommodation. On 24 December 2007, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Vartic with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgment in favour of Mr Vartic was enforced.
Applications nos. 13012/07 and 13339/07
By final judgments of 2 August 2006 the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL