Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Neamţu v. the Republic of Moldova:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The case concerned a Moldovan applicant who had initially won a court case for compensation related to confiscated property, but this victory was overturned after the Supreme Court of Justice accepted appeals that were lodged outside the legally prescribed time limit. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Moldova violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) due to the breach of the principle of legal certainty, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because the late appeals led to a reduction in the compensation awarded to the applicant. The Court ordered Moldova to pay the applicant compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The Court emphasized that examining appeals outside the legal time limits undermines legal certainty. The applicant died during the proceedings, and his heir continued the application.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Subject Matter of the Case:** This section outlines the factual background, including the applicant’s initial claim for compensation, the decisions of the Moldovan courts, and the appeals lodged by the local council and the Ministry of Finance.
* **The Court’s Assessment:**
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention:** This section addresses the applicant’s complaint regarding the violation of his right to a fair trial due to the acceptance of late appeals. It includes considerations regarding the applicant’s death and his heir’s wish to continue the application. The Court refers to its established case-law on legal certainty, emphasizing that examining appeals outside the legal time-limits may undermine this principle.
* **Other Alleged Violations Under Well-Established Case-Law:** This part deals with the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, concerning the protection of property. The Court refers to its established case-law and concludes that there has been a violation of this article.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** This section concerns the just satisfaction claimed by the applicant, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The Court determines the amounts to be awarded to the applicant.
* **Operative Provisions:** The decision formally declares the application admissible, holds that there have been violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, specifies the amounts to be paid by the respondent State, and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Legal Certainty:** The decision reinforces the importance of legal certainty and highlights that domestic courts must adhere to legal time-limits for appeals. Examining appeals lodged outside these time-limits can constitute a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
* **Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** The decision confirms that the examination of late appeals, resulting in the overturning of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour, can also constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* **Compensation:** The Court awarded the applicant compensation for pecuniary damage (the difference between the initial award and the reduced amount), lost interest, and non-pecuniary damage. This demonstrates the Court’s approach to providing just satisfaction in cases where violations have occurred.
* **Heir Status:** The Court explicitly acknowledged the heir’s right to continue the application, emphasizing the economic nature of the interests at stake as a valid reason for pursuing the case.
**** This decision may be relevant for Ukraine, particularly in the context of ensuring the rule of law and the protection of property rights. The principles of legal certainty and adherence to procedural time-limits are crucial for a fair and effective judicial system. This case could be used as a reference in similar cases involving violations of these principles.
