TURCEAC A CERCHEZ proti Moldavsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11972/16
Ivan TURCEAC and Larisa CERCHEZ
against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 September 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President,

Jovan Ilievski,

Diana Sârcu, judges,

and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 11972/16) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26 February 2016 by two Moldovan nationals, Mr Ivan Turceac and Ms Larisa Cerchez, who were born in 1963 and 1964, respectively, and live in Chișinău (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the non-enforcement of a final judicial decision by which the State was obliged to transfer into the applicants’ property several apartments for a period of some two years.

2. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment and about the refusal of the domestic courts to compensate their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

3. After the communication of the case, the respondent Government informed the Court that in fact there was a set of proceedings initiated by the applicants against the State in which they claimed compensation for a period of one year of non-enforcement and were awarded some 30,000 Euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage. Those proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Chișinău Court of Appeal of 9 November 2017.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

4. The Government submitted, inter alia, that the applicants had intentionally omitted to inform the Court about the award of EUR 30,000 by the domestic courts. They argued that such behaviour on the part of the applicants constituted an abuse of the right of individual application and therefore asked the Court to dismiss the application on that ground.

5. The applicants did not comment on the above objection.

6. The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, applicants are required to keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. It also notes that the applicants’ attention was expressly drawn to this obligation in the Court’s letter by which the receipt and registration of their application was confirmed. The Court further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation was given for the failure to disclose that information (Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007).

7. In the circumstances of the present case, the applicants, who were represented by a legal counsel, have not furnished any plausible explanation for their failure to inform the Court about the fact that they had initiated compensatory proceedings and that they had obtained compensation from the domestic courts. The Court considers the outcome of those proceedings of great importance in the determination of the complaints made by the applicants in their application lodged with the Court.

8. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the applicants’ conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.

9. In view of the above, the application must accordingly be rejected as abusive, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2022.

Dorothee von Arnim Branko Lubarda
Deputy Registrar President