Decision of Court (Third Section Committee), April 21, 2015 (case CHIRIAC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA)

JudgeN\/A
Resolution DateApril 21, 2015
Issuing OrganizationCourt (Third Section Committee)

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35401/11Andrei CHIRIACagainst the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 April 2015 as a Committee composed of:

             Kristina Pardalos, President,              Valeriu Griţco,              Branko Lubarda, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2011,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrei Chiriac, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Strasbourg.

The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

  1. The circumstances of the case

    The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

    The applicant is a lawyer. On an unspecified date in 2004 he concluded a legal assistance contract with a Latvian company named Aroma Floris. On the basis of that contract the applicant undertook to represent Aroma Floris before the Court in its proceedings against the Republic of Moldova concerning the failure to enforce a final judgment in its favour. According to the terms of the contract, Aroma Floris was to pay the applicant 46,718 United States dollars (USD) and 28% of the amount of money awarded in the proceedings.

    After the communication of its case to the Government, Aroma Floris changed its representative in the proceedings before the Court and, subsequently, its application was struck out in 2008 as a result of a friendly settlement agreement reached with the Government.

    On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant brought proceedings before the Botanica District Court against its former client, Aroma Floris, and claimed USD 46,718 and 114,219 Euros (EUR). Aroma Floris initially employed a lawyer who objected to the proceedings arguing that according to a 1993 treaty between the Republic of Moldova and Latvia concerning legal assistance, the Latvian courts had exclusive jurisdiction in the case. He also submitted that according to that treaty, the defendant’s summoning was to take place through a special procedure involving the Ministries of Justice of Moldova and Latvia. After making that objection, Aroma Floris revoked the power of attorney from its lawyer and did not participate in the proceedings.

    On 18 October 2010 the Botanica District Court examined the case in the absence of the representative of Aroma...

To continue reading

Request your trial