FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19265/05
by Andrei SOLOVIOV
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 April 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrei Soloviov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1931 and lives in Cahul. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Chiriacov, a lawyer practising in Cahul. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s parents were victims of the communist repressions of the 1940s and their property was confiscated by the Soviet State.
On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Cahul Municipal Council seeking the restitution of the house confiscated from his parents.
By a final judgment of 29 November 2000 the Cahul District Court ordered the eviction of the occupants of the applicant’s house and restitution of the house to him.
The judgment was only enforced after the communication of the case to the Government.
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated by the failure to enforce the judgment of 29 November 2000.
2.  The applicant also alleged that the failure to enforce the judgment of 29 November 2000 had violated his right to protection of property as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
On 11 April 2008 the Court received the following signed declaration from the Government and the applicant:
“1.  The Government undertake to pay the applicant, with a view to settling the case, a sum of 1,800 euros (EUR) to cover pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 400 for costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, within three months from the date on which the Court will pronounce a decision in the [present case].
2.  The payment of the above amounts will constitute a full and final settlement of the case.
3.  The applicant shall declare his claims satisfied and shall withdraw his application [...] from the Court.
4.  The applicant declares that he will not have any further pecuniary, non-pecuniary, or other claims against the Government in connection with the present case.
5.  The parties shall inform the Court about the present agreement and request that the case be struck out of the list of cases.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). It is understood that in the event of failure to pay the above sums within the period stated in the declaration, the Government shall pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. In of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza
	Registrar	President