FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50319/06
by Petru JESTCOV
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Nicolas Bratza, President,
	Lech Garlicki,
	Ljiljana Mijović,
	Ján Šikuta,
	Mihai Poalelungi,
	Nebojša Vučinić,
	Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Petru Jestcov, is an Moldovan national who was born in 1950 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Tighinean, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
In 2000 the Government put up for sale their stock in company G. The applicant participated in the auction and purchased 77.9% of the stock.
On 4 February 2005 the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated court proceedings against the Department of Privatisation and the applicant seeking the annulment of the contract of sale of the stock. It argued that the Department of Privatisation had breached several provisions of the accounting legislation and that, therefore, the price received by the State for the shares was too small.
The applicant argued in his defence that the Prosecutor General’s action was time-barred and that, in any event, it was ill-founded, because he had been a good-faith buyer and the mistakes allegedly committed by the Government could not be imputed to him.
On 10 February 2006 the Economic Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, found in favour of the Prosecutor General’s Office and annulled the transaction of 2000. It did not refer to the applicant’s limitation period objection and found that the interests of the State had been prejudiced as a result of the mistakes committed by the Department of Privatisation during the privatisation of 2000. The applicant appealed.
On 8 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held, inter alia, that the Statute of Limitations was not applicable to actions initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office in the interests of the State.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair and contrary to Article 6 of the Convention because the courts had failed to apply the Statue of Limitations.
2.  The applicant also argued that his right to respect for his property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated as a result of the unfair civil proceedings.
3.  The applicant finally argued that he had not had any effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention to challenge the alleged breaches of his Convention rights.
THE LAW
On 6 October 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova accept that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case and offer to pay the sum of 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Petru Jestcov with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 7 October 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Alexei Tighinean, the applicant’s representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova accept that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case and are prepared to pay the sum of 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Petru Jestcov with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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