[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Tudor FRUNZE v Moldova - 22545/05 [2009] ECHR 741 (7 April 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/741.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 741

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 22545/05
by Tudor FRUNZE
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2005,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Tudor Frunze, is a Moldovan national who was born in Orhei and lives there. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Duca, a lawyer practising in Orhei. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.Grosu.

A.  The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was an employee of the State-owned heating supplier (“the company”). On an unspecified date in January 2003 the applicant retired, but the company continued to owe him salary arrears.

The applicant filed a court action against the company, seeking an order obliging the latter to pay him the arrears.

On 2 October 2003 the Orhei District Court awarded the applicant 8,082 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 523 euros (EUR) at the time, to be paid by his former employer. This judgment became final and an enforcement warrant was issued.

On 24 October 2003 the applicant submitted the enforcement warrant to the Orhei Enforcement Department.

On 14 November 2003 the Enforcement Department informed the applicant that it was unable to attach the debtor's assets, given that they had already been attached since 2002.

On 14 July 2004 the applicant was informed that on 18 September 2002, the Orhei local council ordered the transfer of several assets belonging to the company to another municipal company. The applicant challenged the local council's decision in court.

On 2 August 2004 the applicant requested the Enforcement Department to provide him with all the documents concerning the debtor company's assets.

On 29 October 2004 the Enforcement Department informed the applicant that MDL 700 (EUR 44) had been transferred to the applicant's account. It stated that the applicant had refused another sum amounting to MDL 400 (EUR 25), which was to be paid according to the creditor tables.

On 29 October 2004 the Orhei District Court dismissed the applicant's claims as unfounded. The applicant appealed against this judgment.

On 21 December 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Moldova rejected the applicant's appeal as unfounded.

On 27 December 2004 the applicant repeatedly requested the Enforcement Department to provide him with all the documents concerning the debtor company's assets and to inform him about the prospects of the enforcement of the final judgment in his favour.

On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant filed a court action against the bailiff, seeking an order recognising the insufficiency of the measures taken by the bailiff in order to enforce the final judgment in his favour.

On 15 November 2004 the Orhei District Court dismissed the applicant's claims. The applicant appealed. On 15 February 2005, the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal as unfounded.

On 7 July 2005 the debtor company paid the applicant MDL 6,981 (EUR 466). On 9 September 2005 it paid him MDL 400 (EUR 26). Thus, the award of 2 October 2003 became fully enforced.

COMPLAINTS

THE LAW

On 6 March 2009 the Court received from the Government a friendly-settlement agreement reached with the applicant's representative:

“1.  The Government of Moldova undertake to pay Mr Tudor Frunze the sum of 800 (eight hundred) euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

2.  The arrangement mentioned above shall constitute the final settlement of the case.

3.  The applicant shall declare all his claims satisfied and shall withdraw the application no.22545/05 Frunze v. Moldova, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and notified to the Government on 16 December 2008.

4.  The applicant declares that he waives any further claims against the Government of Moldova in respect of facts giving rise to this application, including any claims of non-pecuniary or pecuniary nature, or any other damage which could result from the judgment of the Orhei District Court of 2 October 2003.

5.  The parties shall inform the European Court of the existence of the present agreement and shall request the case to be struck out from the list of cases.”

The friendly-settlement agreement was signed by the applicant's representative and the Government and dated 6 March 2009.

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President