CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 janvier 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 148 January 2012 Balan v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.) - 44746/08 Decision 24.1.2012 [Section III] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Claim for compensation under Law no.   87 in length of proceedings and non-enforcement cases: effective remedy   Facts – In 2004 the applicant was awarded damages by a court against a third party in respect of injuries he had sustained in an accident. In an application lodged with the European Court in 2008, the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to enforce the award. In September 2011 the Court was informed by the respondent Government that a new statutory remedy for the problems of non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and length of proceedings had been introduced by Law no.   87 in response to the Court’s direction in the pilot judgment of Olaru and Others v.   Moldova (nos.   476/07 et al., 28   July 2009, Information Note no.   121 ). The Court therefore examined whether the applicant, who had not used this new remedy, had complied with the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies. Law – Article 35 § 1: The Court accepted that Law no.   87 was designed, in principle, to address the issue of delayed enforcement of judgments in an effective and meaningful manner, taking account of the Convention requirements. While the domestic courts had not been able yet to establish any stable practice under the Law, the Court did not at this stage see any reason to believe that the new remedy could not afford the applicant adequate and sufficient redress or offer reasonable prospects of success. Even though the new remedy had only become available after the introduction of the application, this was a case where it was appropriate and justified to require the applicant to use it since, firstly, the remedy had been introduced in response to a pilot judgment and it would be in line with the spirit and logic of that judgment for applicants complaining about non-enforcement of final judgments and length of proceedings to use the new remedy;* and, secondly, the transitional provision of Law no.   87 reflected the Moldovan authorities’ intention to grant domestic redress to people who had already applied to the Court before the entry into force of the Law and was thus in accord with the paramount principle of subsidiarity. Save in exceptional circumstances where necessary for the sake of fairness and effectiveness, the Court would require, as a matter of principle, that all new cases introduced after the pilot judgment and falling under Law no.   87 be submitted in the first place to the national courts. That position might, however, be subject to review in the future depending, in particular, on the domestic courts’ capacity to establish consistent case-law under Law no.   87 in line with the Convention requirements. Conclusion : inadmissible (failure to exhaust domestic remedies). * See also Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.   26716/09, 67576/09 and 7698/10, and Nagovitsyn and Nalgiyev v. Russia (dec.), nos.   27451/09 and 60650/09, both 23   September 2010, Information Note no.   133 .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes