SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 16313/15 and 980/18
Nicolae BULMAGA and Victoria BULMAGA against the Republic of Moldova and Fiodor SPÎNU against the Republic of Moldova
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 January 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by V. Diaconov, a lawyer practising in Călărași.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the inadvertent swapping of their child with another by the hospital were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the breach of the applicants’ right to family life. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants’ representative was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several months before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the protection of family life (see, mutatis mutandis, Keegan v. Ireland, no. 16969/90, §§ 44 and 45, 26 May 1994; Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-III; G.B. and R.B. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 16761/09, §§ 32-35, 18 December 2012; Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 21794/08, §§ 68-75, ECHR 2013; and V.D. and Others v. Russia, no. 72931/10, § 92, 9 April 2019).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 February 2020.
Liv TigerstedtIvana Jelić
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per application
(in euros)[i]
16313/15
20/03/2015
Nicolae BULMAGA
01/04/1968
Victoria BULMAGA
13/04/1971
Diaconov Valeriu
Calarasi
07/03/2019
-
7,500 jointly
980/18
06/12/2017
Fiodor SPÎNU
21/04/1992
Diaconov Valeriu
Calarasi
07/03/2019
-
7,500
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy