SAJIN proti Moldavsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31667/10
Svetlana SAJIN
against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Jovan Ilievski, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Diana Sârcu, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Ms Svetlana Sajin, was born in 1959 and was represented by Mr S. Șteliman, a lawyer practising in Orhei.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention, concerning the non-examination of her appeal on points of law, was communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).

The Government informed the Court that on 27 November 2019 the Supreme Court of Justice had examined the applicant’s appeal on points of law and had upheld it, delivering a judgment which partially upheld her claims. The Government requested that the application be rejected as inadmissible due to the non-exhaustion of the domestic remedy under Law no. 87 (see Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012 and Manascurta v. Moldova (dec.), no. 31856/07, 14 February 2012). In particular, the Government submitted that the case no longer concerned the failure to examine the applicant’s appeal, but rather the excessive length of the judicial proceedings.

The applicant did not comment.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicant’s appeal on points of law was indeed examined on its merits by the Supreme Court of Justice on 27 November 2019, albeit more than ten years after it had been lodged, and that a judgment partially favourable to the applicant had been issued as a result. It was indeed open to the applicant to make use of the remedy instituted under Law no. 87 to claim compensation for the excessive length of civil proceedings and to submit a new application to the Court if she were to be unsatisfied with the awarded compensation.

In view of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 November 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski
Acting Deputy Registrar President