... Роби велике, не обіцяй великого (Піфагор) ...

Головне меню

Міжнародна науково-практична конференція 30.05.19 - СЕКЦІЯ №2
The pilot judgment procedure, occasionally performed by the European Court of Human Rights («the Court»), is aimed at the resolution of the States’ structural or systemic problems, which generate a multitude of repetitive cases. When the Court delivers a pilot judgment it determines the presence of such an issue and indicates, among the judgment’s operative provisions, the measures that are to be taken by the respondent State in order to solve it. Consequently, a question of effectiveness may arise and it can be addressed through the examination of the existent practice on this matter. 
The Republic of Moldova is one of the States that have the experience of participating in a pilot judgment procedure. On 28 July 2009, the Court delivered its pilot judgment in the case Olaru and Others v. Moldova [1]. The Court found the violation of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms («the Convention») and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the respondent State did not enforce the final domestic judgments issued in the applicants’ favour. Those violations were the result of a practice incompatible with the Convention, manifested through the recurrent failure to comply with the final judgments awarding social housing, in respect of which the aggrieved parties had no effective domestic remedy. Therefore, the Court decided that the respondent State had to institute a domestic remedy that would cope with the identified problem.
Following the issuance of the above-mentioned pilot judgment the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova, in conformity with the Court’s conclusions, adopted on 21 April 2011 Law no. 87 [2], establishing a mechanism designed to compensate the damage produced by the excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings. The Court noted in its decision of 24 January 2012, regarding the case Balan v. Moldova [3], that there was no reason to believe that the new remedy could not afford the applicant the possibility to obtain adequate and sufficient redress for his grievances or that it could not offer reasonable prospects of success. Since the applicant refused to use the mechanism set up by Law no. 87, the Court declared the application inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
The Report on the Monitoring of the Implementation Process of Law no. 87 reveals the number of cases initiated on the basis of this Law per year: in 2011 –  211 cases, in 2012 – 373 cases, in 2013 – 833 cases, in 2014 – 568 cases, in 2015 – 549 cases and 293 cases were reported in the first 6 months of 2016 [4]. These data reflect the Law’s applicability upon the individuals’ request and, thus, the necessity of such legislation is once again demonstrated.
In addition, on 15 September 2015 the Court delivered its quasi-pilot judgment in the case Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova [5], suggesting in the text of the judgment how to solve the problems caused by the inadequacy of the detention conditions in the prisons of the Republic of Moldova, without indicating the potential solution in the operative part of the judgment. The presence of such suggestions in the judgment’s reasoning part and the absence of such indications among the judgment’s operative provisions is the basic distinctive feature of a quasi-pilot judgment. It must be underlined that in the case Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova the Court found, inter alia, the violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Subsequently, the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova adopted Law no.163 of 20 July 2017 [6] and Law no. 272 of 29 November 2018 [7], introducing a new preventive and compensatory remedy for the individuals affected by poor detention conditions. On 12 February 2019, the Court issued its decision regarding the case Draniceru v. the Republic of Moldova [8], and it assessed that the new remedy instituted in the Republic of Moldova presented, in principle, perspectives for adequate redress of Convention violations caused by precarious detention conditions. The Court also esteemed that the recently created remedy was compliant with the criteria set forth in the Shishanov case and that it could a priori be regarded as effective for the challenging of the poor detention conditions in the prisons of the Republic of Moldova. The applicant had to use the newly established mechanism and, accordingly, that complaint was declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
In the end, it is notable that in both instances the respondent State has acted in accordance with the Court’s findings and has improved its legal system by creating new domestic remedies meant for the resolution of massive issues affecting numerous individuals. It seems that the pilot judgment procedure has proven its efficiency in the Republic of Moldova and, at present, there is no reason to consider otherwise.

1. Olaru and Others v. Moldova, App. Nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07, Judgment (Chamber), 28 July 2009.
2. Law of the Republic of Moldova no. 87 of 21 April 2011 on the Reparation by the State of the Damage Caused by the Infringement of the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Judgment Enforcement within a Reasonable Time.
3. Balan v. Moldova, App. No. 44746/08, Decision (Chamber), 24 January 2012.
4. Report on the Monitoring of the Implementation Process of Law no. 87, http://justice.gov.md/public/files/ file/rapoarte/2016/ianuarie/RAPORT_LEGEA_87.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2019).
5. Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, App. No. 11353/06, Judgment (Chamber), 15 September 2015.
6. Law of the Republic of Moldova no. 163 of 20 July 2017 Modifying and Completing Some Legislative Acts.
7. Law of the Republic of Moldova no. 272 of 29 November 2018 Modifying Some Legislative Acts.
8. Draniceru v. the Republic of Moldova, App. No. 31975/15, Decision (Chamber), 12 February 2019. {jcomments on}

English French German Polish Romanian Russian Ukrainian
Національний розвиток держави і права повинен ґрунтуватися, у першу чергу, на:
На Вашу думку чи забезпечують реалізацію принципу верховенства права законодавчі реформи 2020 року?
Система Orphus
Повну відповідальність за зміст опублікованих тез доповідей несуть автори, рецензенти та структурні підрозділи вищих навчальних закладів та наукових установ, які рекомендували їх до друку.

Лічильники і логотипи

Актуальна Юриспруденція