THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45778/05
Ion CICALA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Ion Cicala, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1977 and lives in Jora de Mijloc. He was represented before the Court by Ms E. Breahna, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention about a breach of his right not to be subjected to ill-treatment, right to liberty, right to a fair trial and right to respect for his home.
On 19 January 2012 and 2 March 2012 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 10,000 euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from 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 case.
THE LAW
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).
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 TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy