Summary of ECHR judgments and decisions on appeals vs Moldova

Vladislav Gribincea / March 23, 2006

The summary of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on appeals vs Moldova was worked out by Vladislav GRIBINCEA, jurist in the public organisation Lawyers for Human Rights on March 23, 2006.

Judgments

ECHR states the case for an appeal through judgments, as a rule, after the cause is declared admissible.

December 13, 2001 — MITROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA and others v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 45701/99) — judgment from June 7, 2001 — violation of Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of religion) — refusal to register a religious domination.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 20,000
costs and expenses — EUR 7,025
April 20, 2004 — AMIHALACHIOAIE v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 60115/00) — judgment from April 23, 2002 — violation of Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) — proportionality of a pecuniary sanction for criticising a decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 0
costs and expenses — EUR 0
May 18, 2004 — PRODAN v. MOLDOVA (Application no.49806/99) — judgment from January 7, 2003 — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a court) — non-execution of judicial decisions on payment of some amounts of money and restitution of a real estate by the Chisinau City Hall; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usage of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 11,000
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 3,000
The Court did not state the case for the cost of an apartment which should be restored. This issue will be settled through a distinct judgment.
June 15, 2004 — LUNTRE and others 14 v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 2916/02) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of various judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Ministry of Finance; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 795
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 14,000
costs and expenses — EUR 0
June 15, 2004 — PASTELI and others 3 v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 9898/02) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-execution of judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Ministry of Finance; violation of Art. 1 of the additional protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 386
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 3,300
costs and expenses — EUR 0
June 15, 2004 — SIRBU and others 5 v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 73562/01) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Ministry of Finance; violation of Art. 1 of the additional protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 487
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 6,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,200
July 6, 2004 — BOCANCEA and others 8 v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 18872/02) — violation of Art. 6(1) the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Ministry of Finance; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 833
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 7,300
July 8, 2004 — ILASCU and others 3 v. MOLDOVA and RUSSIA (Application no. 48787/99) — judgment from July 7, 2001 — violation of Art. 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) — treatment and conditions of detention in prisons of the Moldovan Republic of Transnistria; violation of Art. 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) — detention of applicants runs “counter the law”; violation of Art. 34 of the Convention (right of petition to the ECHR) by Moldova — declaration of Mr. Voronin that Mr. Ilascu is the person who is keeping his comrades detained in Tiraspol because he did not withdraw his application to the ECHR; violation of Art. 34 (right of petition to the ECHR) of the Convention by Russia — exercising pressure on Moldova through diplomatic means in order to retract Moldova’s stance in the case in favour of Russia.
non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage: Russian Federation
Mr. Ilascu — EUR 180,000;
other applicants — EUR 120,000 to each of the applicants;
Art. 34 — EUR 7,000 to each applicant;
non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage: Republic of Moldova
Andrei Ivantoc, Tudor Popa and Alexandru Lesco — EUR 60,000 to each of the applicants;
Art. 34 — EUR 3,000 to each applicant;
costs and expenses:
Russian Federation — EUR 14,000
Moldova — EUR 7,000
July 20, 2004 — CROITORU v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 18882/02) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts by the Ministry of Finance; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 98.36
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 800
costs and expenses — EUR 69.14
September 14, 2004 — TIMBAL v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 22970/02) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Interior Ministry; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 370
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 800
December 21, 2004 — BUSUIOC v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 61513/00) — judgment from April 27, 2004 — violation of Art. 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression) — obligation of a journalist, on a case of protection of honour and dignity, to demonstrate that his conclusions are true. Obligation to non-pecuniary damage when the journalist had acted in good faith and it has been shown that there existed reasonable factual basis for the opinion expressed and he covered matters of public interest.
pecuniary damage — EUR 125
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 4,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,500
January 18, 2005 — POPOV (1) v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 74153/01) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of a judgment on restitution of a residence confiscated by the Chisinau City Hall; violation of Art. 1 of the additional protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usages of possession.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 5,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,000
The Court did not state the case for pecuniary claims, this issue being reserved for a repaired judgment (see judgment # 26)
February 1, 2005 — ZILIBERBERG v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 61821/00) — judgment from May 4, 2004 — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) — failure of a court to summon the applicant for the hearing of his appeal regarding an administrative sanction.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 0
costs and expenses — EUR 1,000
March 1, 2005 — MERIAKRI v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 53487/99) — judgment from January 16, 2001 — the Government of the Republic of Moldova has acknowledged that the censorship of correspondence of detainees with ECHR contravenes to Art. 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention.
non-pecuniary damage — MDL 14,000
costs and expenses — EUR 2,000
March 22, 2005 — ROSCA v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 6267/02) — judgment from November 30, 2004 — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) — annulment of a final judicial decision on payment of an amount of money by accepting a request for annulment; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to deprive of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 3,500
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 2,000
costs and expenses — EUR 690
May 24, 2005 — DUMBRAVEANU v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 20940/03) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Chisinau Municipal Council; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usage of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 3,400
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 1,360
costs and expenses — EUR 390
July 26, 2005 — SCUTARI v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 20864/03) violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts by the Orhei Local Council; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usage of possession.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 1,250
September 13, 2005 — OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 36475/02) — judgment from March 22, 2005 — violation of Art. 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) — conditions of detention in the Prison # 3 based in the Chisinau municipality; violation of Art. 8 of the Convention (right to respect of private and family life) — right to have meetings with his family and censorship of correspondence; violation of Art. 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Art. 3 of the Convention — impossibility to resist effectively to the treatment he had faced; no violation of Art. 13 taken together with Art. 8 of the Convention — respect of the denial to the applicant of contact with his family and daughter.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 3,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,500
October 4, 2005 — BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 9190/03) — judgment from March 5, 2005 — violation of Article 3 from Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) — condition of detention in the Temporary Detention Facility of the General Police Inspectorate of the Chisinau municipality; violation of Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) — reasons concerning detention of applicant were not relevant and sufficient.
pecuniary damage — EUR 1,000
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 4,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,200
October 4, 2005 — SARBAN v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 3456/05) — violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) — absence of medical care for detained person; violation of Art. 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) — reasons concerning detention of applicant were not relevant and sufficient.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 4,000
costs and expenses — EUR 3,000
October 11, 2005 — SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 11039/02) — judgment from February 1, 2005 — violation of Art. 10 (freedom of expression) — obligation of a journalist to demonstrate that her conclusions correspond to reality in a case of protection of honour and dignity. Deprivation of applicant of an effective opportunity to adduce evidence to support her statements.
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage — EUR 3,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,500
October 18, 2005 — DANILIUC v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 46581/99) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of judgments on payment of some amounts of money by the Costesti local council; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usage of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 100
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 1,000
November 8, 2005 — ASITO v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 40663/98) — judgments from March 16, 1999 and July 10, 2001 — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — annulment of a final judicial decision by accepting a request for annulment; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification of deprivation of property.
The ECHR will communicate the damage, costs and expenses in a distinct judgment.
November 15, 2005 — BAIBARAC v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 31530/03) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of a judgment on payment of some amounts by the Edinet local council; violation of Art. 1 of the additional protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usage of possession.
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 1,000
December 6, 2005 — POPOV (2) v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 19960/04) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) — revision of an unexecuted final judicial decision without indicating the reasons, after the non-enforcement of judgment was deplored to the ECHR and the application was communicated to the Government.
pecuniary damage — EUR 3, 365
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 3,000
costs and expenses — EUR 715
January 17, 2006 — POPOV (1) v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 74153/01) — ARTICLE 41 — pecuniary damage (which was not awarded through the January 18, 2005 judgment)
pecuniary damage — EUR 14,840
February 14, 2006 — CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S PARTY v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 28793/02) judgment from March 22, 2005 — violation of Art.11 of the Convention (freedom of association) — suspension of the CDDP between January 18 and February 8, 2002 for organising meetings with involvement of minors that the Chisinau City Hall did not authorise. The reasons invoked by national authorities were not relevant and sufficient.
costs and expenses — EUR 4,000
March 21, 2006 — LUPACESCU and others 7 v. MOLDOVA (Applications no. 3417/02, 5994/02, 28365/02, 5742/03, 8693/03, 31976/03, 13681/03 and 32759/03) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — non-enforcement of a judgment on payment of some amounts of money by state authorities; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification to prevent the usage of possession.
pecuniary damage — EUR 2,188.64
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 9,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,500
March 21, 2006 — JOSAN v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 37431/02) — violation of Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (access to a court) — annulment of a final judicial decision by accepting a request for annulment; violation of Art. 1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) — lack of justification of deprivation of property.
pecuniary damage — EUR 16,000
non-pecuniary damage — EUR 2,000
costs and expenses — EUR 1,250

Admissible applications

Admissible applications when the application was not declared inadmissible.

June 15, 2004 — MANOLE and others v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 13936/02) — the application was brought by 9 former employees of the state-owned company TeleRadio-Moldova, who complained under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the Convention about the censorship imposed on Moldovan national radio and television. The June 15, 2004 judgment is partial. Public hearings took place on March 7, 2006.
April 5, 2005 — IORDACHI and others 4 v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 25198/02) — the application was brought by five persons who complained that they had been victims of interception of their communications, while the domestic legislation does not contain sufficient guarantees to prevent interference with respect for private right concerning Art. 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life). The application was declared admissible.
September 13, 2005 — CORSACOV v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 18944/02) — the application was brought by a young man who complained that he had been ill-treated by police while the prosecutor’s office did not investigate his appeals, so that Art. 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture) was violated. The application was entirely admitted.
October 11, 2005 — CIORAP v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 12066/02) — the application was brought by a person sentenced to detention and it envisages 17 counts. They are related to violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (respect for correspondence) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. The application was declared admissible on the date mentioned above and it envisages conditions of detention, forced nutrition, equity of procedure of evacuation of his family from apartment, censorship of correspondence and right to contact his family.

Inadmissible applications

Under Art. 35 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, accordingly to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Art. 34 that: a) is anonymous; or b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Art. 34 which it considers incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of application.

July 2, 2002 — GORIZDRA v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 53180/99). The applicant claimed that the introduction of the 4-percent threshold for succession to the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova at the 1998 parliamentary elections was contrary to Art. 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention (right to free elections). The Court found that the introduction of a threshold for succession to the Parliament does not run counter the Convention. Art. 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention does not require the institution of a certain electoral system.
The applicant also claimed that the examination of his complaints by courts regarding contestation of results of the 1995 and 1997 elections was unfair and contravened to Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing). The Court noted that Art. 6 of the Convention is not applicable for electoral contestations.
September 14, 2004 — FRUNZE v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 42308/02) — the applicant claimed that Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) was violated through cassation of a request for annulment of s decision in his favour. The application was declared inadmissible because it was submitted with 6 months after admission of the request for annulment.
September 14, 2004 — RAHOTCHI v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 31927/03) — the applicant claimed that Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) was violated through cassation of a request for annulment of s decision in his favour. The application was declared inadmissible because it was submitted with 6 months after admission of the request for annulment.
November 30, 2004 — CHURCH ST. HRALAMPIE and others v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 19967/02) — Applicants claimed that Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) was violated through a settlement on striking out their application, maintained through a decision of the court of appeal. The application was declared inadmissible because Art. 6 is not applicable for intermediary procedures that do not have a decisive effect on “the civil right or obligation”, or applicants are not hampered to submit a new appeal at national level.
December 14, 2004 — LUPASCU v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 36475/02). The applicant claimed that Art. 6 (1) of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) was violated through cassation of a request for annulment of a decision in his favour. The application was declared inadmissible because the claim regarding violation of Art. 6 (1) was submitted with 6 months after admission of the request for annulment.
January 4, 2005 — PENTIACOVA and others 48 v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 14462/03). The applicants who suffer from chronic renal failure claimed that they had been forced to undergo a treatment with unbearable pain and suffering because the Haemodialysis Centre of the Republican Clinic Hospital did not provide them the strictly necessary medical care, contrary to Art. 3 of the Convention (prohibition of torture), and this has put their lives a risk contrary to Art. 2 of the Convention (right to life). They also alleged that they could oppose the treatments they were subdued to contrary to Art. 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy). At the same time, the applicants received a poorer treatment than people suffering from chronic renal failure from the Emergency Hospital. The application was declared inadmissible. The Court examined the application under Art. 8 of the Convention (right to respect of private life) and declared it groundless because the Convention does not indicate a general obligation of governments to provide the entire range of medical assistance on public money.
June 15, 2005 — SPIRITUAL DIRECTION OF MUSLIMS FROM REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 12282/02) — the applicant claimed that the denial of registration of this religious denomination with the Justice Ministry was a violation of Art. 9 of the Convention (freedom of religion). The application was declared inadmissible because the registration was denied due to the failure to submit all the documents necessary for registration of a religious denomination. The Court found out that the request to submit all the demanded documents was not arbitrary or impossible.
November 26, 2005 — GRITCO v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 15840/02) — the applicant claimed that Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) was violated through non-execution of a judicial decision against a closing private bank. The application was declared as inadmissible because the Convention does not oblige the state to be responsible for debts of private banks.

Striking out under Article 37 of the Convention

Under Art. 37 of the Convention, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where circumstances lead to the conclusion that: a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or b) the matter has been resolved; or c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.

January 10, 2006 — DONIC v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 1805/02). The application was stricken out because the applicant did not respond to the correspondence of the Court. The Court made the conclusion that the applicant does not want his application be examined any longer and no special circumstance justifies the continued examination of this application.
January 10, 2006 — HARCENCO v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 23606/02). The application was crossed off because the applicant did not respond to the correspondence of the Court. The Court made the conclusion that the applicant does not want to pursue his application any longer and no special circumstance justifies the continued examination of this application.
January 10, 2006 — MARIN v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 31281/02). The application was stricken out because the applicant did not respond to the correspondence of the Court. The Court made the conclusion that the applicant does not want to pursue his application any longer and no special circumstance justifies the continued examination of this application.

Friendly settlements

If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights. If a friendly settlement is effected, the Court shall strike the case out of its list by means of a decision which shall be confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached. It has a legal force of a judgment and it shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.

March 11, 2003 — GUTAN v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 57507/00) — the plaintiff claimed violation of Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Art.1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) through non-execution of a judgment on restitution of his house. The applicant notified the ECHR on June 14, 2002 that the decision was executed and he did not want the Court to continue the examination of his application any longer. The Court has stopped the procedure initiated by applicant on this ground.
May 6, 2003 — SVETENCO and JELIMALAI v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 52528/99) — the applicants claimed violation of Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Art.1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) through non-execution of a judgment on restitution of a house. The applicant notified the ECHR on February 17, 2003 that he had accepted 52,000 lei from the Government instead of the house, that the amount was paid and that he did not want to pursue his application any longer. The Court has stopped the procedure initiated by applicant on this ground.
November 30, 2004 — FURTUNA v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 2418/02) — the applicant complained of violation of Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Art.1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) through non-enforcement of two judgments on payment of some amounts of money. Both judgments were executed on May 20, 2003. The applicant sent two letters to the ECHR saying that he did not want to pursue his application any longer. The Court has stopped the procedure initiated by applicant on this ground.
March 1, 2005 — PARITCHI v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 54396/00) — the applicant complained of violation of Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Art.1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) through non-execution of a judgment on restitution of his house. The applicant notified the ECHR on November 3, 2003 and May 5, 2004 that he had signed an agreement with the Government confirming that he received 205,362 lei instead of the house awarded through a judicial decision. The applicant pledged to withdraw his application from ECHR through that agreement. The Court has stopped the procedure initiated by applicant on this ground.
October 25, 2005 — S.A.COMBUSTIBIL SOLID v. MOLDOVA (Application no. 5542/03) — the applicant complained of violation of Art. 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Art.1 of the Additional Protocol (protection of property) through non-execution of a judgment on payment of an amount of money. The applicant notified the ECHR on January 26, 2004 that the unexecuted decision that he had complained to the Court was enforced meanwhile and he did not want to pursue his application any longer. The Court has stopped the procedure initiated by applicant on this ground.

The hostages of Transnistrian regime	Public opinion in Moldova concerning Euro-Atlantic integration