The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of: Alvina Gyulumyan, President, Ineta Ziemele, Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged between 10 May 2005 and 15 September 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants and the applicant companies, referred to in the annex table, are Moldovan nationals or private companies registered in Moldova, except Partidul Popular Republican, which is a political party registered in Moldova. They lodged their applications between 10 May 2005 and 16 August 2010. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. 2. All the applicants obtained final judgments in their favour. Enforcement warrants were issued. Some of these final judgments have...
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 18472/05 Elena GUDEŢ against Moldova and 23 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of: Alvina Gyulumyan, President, Ineta Ziemele, Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged between 10 May 2005 and 15 September 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicants and the applicant companies, referred to in the annex table, are Moldovan nationals or private companies registered in Moldova, except Partidul Popular Republican, which is a political party registered in Moldova. They lodged their applications between 10 May 2005 and 16 August 2010. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. 2. All the applicants obtained final judgments in their favour. Enforcement warrants were issued. Some of these final judgments have not been enforced to date, either fully or in part, whereas others have been enforced with delay (see attached table).
2 GUDET v. MOLDOVA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS DECISION 3. On 1 July 2011 a new law (Law No. 87) entered into force, instituting a remedy against the problem of non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and against the problem of unreasonable length of proceedings. 4. On 29 September 2011 the Court informed the applicants of the new remedy, asking whether they intended to make use of it within the six-month time-limit set by Law No. 87. The applicants’ attention was drawn to the fact that according to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that failure to observe the above rule could constitute a reason for declaring the applications inadmissible. 5. The applicants informed the Court that they intended to make use of the new remedy. Some of them had already initiated proceedings in accordance with Law No. 87. They did not dispute the effectiveness of the new remedy. THE LAW 6. Relying on various provisions of the Convention (see attached table), the applicants complained that the State had failed to ensure the enforcement of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour. 7. The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications. 8. The Court further notes that in the present cases the applicants agreed to use the new remedy and that in some cases the proceedings initiated by them under Law No. 87 are still pending. They did not dispute the effectiveness of the new remedy. In this respect the Court recalls that in Balan v. Moldova ((dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012), it has held that the new remedy introduced by Law no. 87 was designed to address the issue of delayed enforcement of judgments and that it was not ineffective. It was also held t...