FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Applications nos. 13272/07 and 13278/07
by Alexandru STRELŢOV and Ion TĂTĂROI
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
	Nicolas Bratza, President,
	Lech Garlicki,
	Ljiljana Mijović,
	David Thór Björgvinsson,
	Ledi Bianku,
	Mihai Poalelungi,
	Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 9 January 2007,
Having regard to the decision to communicate these applications following the adoption of the pilot judgment in the case of Olaru and others (Olaru and Others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009),
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
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 applicants, Mr Alexandr Strelţov and Mr Ion Tătăroi, are Moldovan nationals who were born respectively in 1961 and 1958. Both applicants were represented before the Court by Mr Anatolie Bîzgu. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu.
As with the applicants in the pilot judgment of Olaru and others (Olaru and others v. Moldova, nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, 28 July 2009), the applicants in the instant cases complained of a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the authorities’ failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by domestic courts in their favour.
By a final judgment of 5 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Tătăroi and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Căuşeni local authorities, to provide him with accommodation.
By a final judgment of 16 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Strelţov and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Căuşeni local authorities, to provide him with accommodation.
On 22 May 2006 Mr Tătăroi signed a contract by which the Căuşeni local authorities handed over to him property rights in respect of an apartment situated in Căuşeni. The contract was registered with the cadastral authorities on 9 August 2006.
On 12 December 2006 Mr Strelţov signed a similar contract in respect of another apartment situated in Căuşeni. The contract was registered with the cadastral authorities on 22 March 2007.
Following communication of the applications, on 30 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that the final judgments in favour of Mr Tătăroi and Mr Strelţov had been enforced, respectively, on 22 May 2006 and 12 December 2006. The Government also attached copies of sale contracts signed by the applicants and other relevant documents.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the applicants’ representative did not inform the Court about the enforcement on 22 May 2006 and 12 December 2006 of the judgments of 5 May 2006 and 16 May 2006.
In the Government’s view, the applicants had acted mala fides in that they failed to inform the Court about the enforcement of the judgments of 5 May 2006 and 16 May 2006. They invited the Court to reject the applications for abuse of the right of application.
The Court recalls that according to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court applicants shall keep the Court informed of all circumstances relevant to the application. It further recalls that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to an abuse of the right of individual petition especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see Hadrabova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42165/02 and 466/03). In the circumstances of the present cases, the applicants have not furnished any plausible explanation for the failure to inform the Court that they had lodged their applications with the Court knowing that the judgments in their favour had been enforced in full. Having regard to the importance of the information at issue for the proper determination of the present cases, the Court finds that the applicants’ conduct was contrary to the purpose of the right of individual petition, as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to reject the applications as an abuse of the right of application pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza 
	Registrar	President