Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2016)147
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Three cases against Republic of Moldova
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
35615/06
CEBOTARI
13/11/2007
13/02/2008
2474/06
GANEA
17/05/2011
17/08/2011
25688/09
CRISTINA BOICENCO
27/09/2011
27/12/2011
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 June 2016
at the 1259th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above-mentioned cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with this obligation and having examined the information submitted by the government and concluded that all necessary individual and general measures in response to the violations found in the above‑mentioned cases have been taken (see the information submitted in the Muşuc, Guţu and Brega groups and the decision of the Committee of Ministers adopted at its 1259th meeting CM (DH) in June 2016);
Recalling in this context that, in the case of Cebotari ,the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the applicant’s arrest and detention without a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence, a violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 as the real aim of the criminal proceedings and his arrest and detention was to put pressure on him with a view to hindering another applicant – the company Oferta Plus S.R.L. - from pursuing its application before the Court, as well as a violation of Article 34 on account of the interference with the applicant’s right to individual petition, given the impossibility to discuss with his lawyers issues concerning his application before the Court because of the glass partition in the then Centre for Fighting Economic Crimes and Corruption (CFECC);
Recalling further that, in the cases of Ganea and Cristina Boicenco, the Court found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 on account of the insufficient amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the applicants’ unlawful detention for three and eleven days, respectively;
Having noted, as regards the applicants’ individual situations, that the just satisfaction has been paid by the government of the respondent State, the applicants are no longer in detention on remand, the applicant in the Cebotari case was acquitted in June 2007 of all the charges wrongfully brought against him and that the company Oferta Plus was eventually able successfully to proceed with its complaint to the Court, and that therefore no other individual measure is necessary in these cases;
Having noted further, as regards the general measures called for by the violation of Article 18 combined with Article 5, the recent substantial reforms of the prosecution service, aiming at improving its independence
vis-à-vis the legislature and the executive and the criminal and disciplinary accountability of prosecutors, including the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 September 2013 prohibiting State authorities from interfering in the handling of specific criminal cases and the subsequent Law on the Prosecution Service adopted in February 2016 following an overall positive assessment by Council of Europe experts;
Having also noted, in respect of the violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5, the ruling of the Supreme Court of 24 December 2012 providing guidance to domestic courts on the amounts to be awarded, in conformity with the European Court’s case law, for non-pecuniary damage for violations of various Articles of the Convention;
Recalling that the Committee continues its examination of the other outstanding questions raised in the Muşuc, Guţu and Brega groups within the framework of these joined groups,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in the cases listed above and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy