 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Parascovia JOMIR v Moldova - 22740/07 [2011] ECHR 681 (22 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/681.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 681 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
22740/07
by Parascovia JOMIR
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 March 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert
Myjer,
President,
Luis
López Guerra,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Parascovia Jomir, a Moldovan national who was born in 1993 and lives in Călăraşi. She was represented by her mother, Mrs Olga Jomir. 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.
On 26 October 2005 the applicant drank water from the tap in her apartment and shortly thereafter she felt unwell. On 29 October 2005 she was admitted to a hospital with the diagnosis “acute dysentery, grave form”.
The applicant was released from hospital on 12 November 2005. She lodged a court action against the local utilities provider (“the provider”), a State company, claiming 100,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 6,700 euros (EUR) at the time) in damages.
On 1 March 2006 the Călăraşi District Court found in her favour and awarded her MDL 10,000 (EUR 648). The court found that various sanitary, medical and technical reports had established that in the vicinity of the applicant’s apartment block the sewage pipe was situated above the drinking water pipe and was leaking. The water pipe had cracked on 26 October 2005 and sewage water had infiltrated the drinking water pipe. The court also established that the pipes had been used since 1977 and that their life expectancy was 15 years. Overall five persons, all of whom had drunk water from the same water pipe, were admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis at approximately the same time as the applicant.
The parties appealed. On 26 April 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and partly accepted the provider’s appeal. It reduced the award to MDL 5,000 (EUR 310) because it found exaggerated both the sum claimed by the applicant and that awarded by the lower court.
The parties appealed. On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the judgment of 26 April 2006. It found that the lower court had taken into consideration the nature and seriousness of the moral suffering caused to the applicant, as well as the degree of guilt of the defendant. That judgment was final.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the small amount of compensation awarded to her amounted to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 30 November 2009 the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 10 May 2010 the observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 7 December 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 21 June 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to the fact that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 30 December 2010. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view 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.
Marialena Tsirli Egbert Myjer
Deputy Registrar President