CASE OF EUGENIA AND DOINA DUCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos
1. The case originated in an application (no. 75/07) 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”) by two Moldovan nationals, Ms Eugenia Duca and Ms Doina Duca (“the applicants”), on 27 December 2006. 2. In a judgment delivered on 3 March 2009 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the upholding by the Supreme Court of Justice on 27 November 2006 of a revision request against a final judgment of 1999, in breach of the principle of legal certainty (Eugenia and Doina Duca v. Moldova, no. 75/07, 3 March 2009). As a result of that quashing the second applicant lost all of her shares (94.46%) in her company. 3. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months of the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach. 4. The applicants and the Government each submitted observations in respect of the just satisfaction. 5. In the meantime, after the adoption of the principal judgment by the Court, the Supreme Court of Justice reviewed its judgment of 27 November 2006 and quashed it on 26 October 2009. The Supreme Court also awarded the applicants compensation of MDL 35,000 (the equivalent of EUR 1,963) for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the abusive quashing of the judgment of 1999. 6. The judge elected in respect of Moldova, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court) after it had been notified to the Government. On 31 January 2009, the Government, pursuant to Rule 29 § 1 (a), informed the Court that they were content to appoint in his stead another elected judge and left the choice of appointee to the President of the Chamber. On 1 February 2009, the President of the Fourth Section appointed Judge Šikuta to sit in the case. This decision was confirmed by the President of the Third Section after Judge Grițco, the judge elected in respect of Moldova, also withdrew from sitting in the case.