OLIŞEVSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

 
 
 
 
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25561/10
Nadejda OLIŞEVSCHI
against the Republic of Moldova
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 April 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nadejda Olişevschi, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1935 and lives in Chişinău. She was represented before the Court by Mr N. Ceclu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicant had a dispute with I.S. and V.S. about the right of ownership over a plot of land. She brought an action against them seeking the annulment of their titles to the disputed land.
On 16 October 2008 the Rîșcani District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims as ill-founded. The applicant appealed. On 10 March 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal, in the presence of I.S.’s representative and in the absence of V.S., quashed the previous judgment and adopted a new judgment in the applicant’s favour. The judgment was delivered on 5 May 2009.
On 6 July 2009 and 13 July 2009 I.S. and V.S., respectively, lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of Justice.
V.S. claimed that he had not been properly summoned in appellate proceedings and that he had been unable to learn about the judgment of 10 March 2009 before 5 June 2009 because he had been at a health resort from 8 to 25 May 2009. Relying on these reasons, he asked the court to extend the time-limit for lodging the appeal on points of law.
On 27 January 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted both appeals on points of law and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court did not refer in its judgment to V.S.’s request to extend the time-limit for lodging the appeal or to whether I.S.’s appeal had been submitted within the legal time-limit. This judgment was final.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the Supreme Court of Justice’s judgment to quash the Court of Appeal’s decision given in her favour after accepting appeals on points of law lodged outside the legal time-limit.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the proceedings in question had given rise to a breach of her rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention which provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 § 1:
“1.  In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... within a reasonable time.”
Article 1 of Protocol 1:
“1.  Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law...”
The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations and argued that the application should be declared inadmissible.
The Court notes that the documents in its posession do not contain any indication that the applicant had raised her allegation concerning the late appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court of Justice.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right – usually through the courts – the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Balan v. Moldova, 44746/08, (dec.), 24 January 2012).
Since the applicant failed to raise before the Supreme Court of Justice the issue about which she complains before the Court, her complaints must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 May 2019.
Hasan BakırcıIvana Jelić
Deputy RegistrarPresident

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy