THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8608/05
by Vladimir DRAGAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 1 September 2010, as amended in a letter of 30 November 2010, requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Vladimir Dragan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1948 and lives in Piatra-Albă. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 26 February 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, attempted murder, aggravated robbery, car theft, and unlawful possession of weapons. The applicant was accused of having committed these crimes together with several other members of a criminal group. He confessed to having committed some of the crimes with which he had been charged, but not murder or attempted murder.
3. On 16 December 2004 the Ialoveni District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Because of the extraordinary difficulty of the case, it was examined by a panel of three judges instead of a single-judge panel. That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 22 March 2005 and the Supreme Court of Justice on 8 June 2005.
4. During the proceedings, N. made a written statement to the effect that she had asked her son to declare that the applicant had shot the victim, in order to protect the person who had been responsible in reality. N. was also heard as a witness by the prosecuting authorities. On 22 March 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal adopted a decision refusing to hear N. as a witness. The court heard a number of other witnesses called by the parties.
5. Between the date of his arrest and 3 May 2005, the applicant was detained in the Ialoveni police station and prison no. 3 in Chişinău, as well as in a hospital for detainees for extended periods.
6. The applicant complained to various authorities, including a parliamentary commission and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, about the conditions of his detention, which he described as follows. At the Ialoveni police station he had been detained in a cell measuring 12-14 sq. m. together with 8-9 other people. The cell had not been equipped with beds. The wooden platforms which had served as beds had not been covered with mattresses or bed linen. There had been no table or chair. The cell had been damp and had lacked access to natural light; there had been low-intensity electric lighting which had always been switched on. There had not been a toilet or water tap and the bucket used as a toilet had been emptied once every twenty-four hours. The cell had been infested with parasitic insects. No daily walk or shower had been allowed. Food had been served once a day and had been inedible. The cell had been very cold during winter and very hot during summer.
7. The applicant also claimed that he had not been given the medical assistance he had needed, as a result of which he had had to undergo three consecutive operations and had become ill with epilepsy.
8. In reply to one of the applicant’s complaints, on 10 February 2004 the Ministry of Internal Affairs confirmed that the cells in the Ialoveni police station did not have access to natural light and that the police station lacked a shower room. In addition, a number of detainees had complained of the presence of parasitic insects in the cell. The Ministry also confirmed that while a courtyard for daily walks existed, detainees did not have access to it because of a shortage of staff to supervise daily walks.
9. During his detention, the applicant was treated on an in-patient basis in various hospitals: between 30 November 2000 – 14 December 2000, 18 October 2001 – 14 March 2003, and 4 August 2004 – 2 September 2004 at Pruncul prison hospital no. 16; and during the period 25 March 2003 – 22 April 2003 at the Republican Psychiatric Hospital.
10. The applicant submitted copies of numerous court decisions postponing the hearing of the case because of the absence of defence lawyers, the accused and/or the prosecutor.
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been detained in inhuman conditions of detention and that he had not been given appropriate medical assistance.
12. He also complained, under the same Article, that he had been ill-treated during his detention and forced to make self-incriminating statements.
13. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had wrongfully convicted him, that they had refused to hear witnesses and that the proceedings in his case had been excessively long.
14. He finally complained under Articles 5, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention that the authorities had refused to examine his case properly and had allowed breaches of his rights to take place.
THE LAW
A. Complaint concerning conditions of detention
15. The applicant complained that he had been detained in inhuman conditions of detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
16. By letter dated 1 September 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving this issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“... 1. The Government acknowledge that there has been an infringement of the applicant’s rights guaranteed under Article 3 of the Convention because of the inhuman and degrading conditions in which the applicant had been detained from 26 February 2000 and until 3 May 2005 in the detention centre of Ialoveni police station and in Prison no. 13 (during [the] periods 30 November 2000 – 14 December 2000, 18 October 2001 – 14 March 2003, [and] 4 August 2004 – 2 September 2004 the applicant had been detained in Pruncul prison hospital no. 16; and during the period 25 March 2003 – 22 April 2003 he was held in the Republican Psychiatric Hospital).
2. The Government offer to pay the global sum of 4,000 (four thousand) euros to the applicant in compensation for any damage caused to him, and also to cover any expenses for his representation before the Court. This sum 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 Convention. ...”
17. In a letter of 18 October 2010 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low and that the declaration did not cover all of his complaints, notably of ill-treatment and the excessive length of the proceedings.
18. In a letter dated 30 November 2010 the Government amended their declaration of 1 September 2010 and offered to pay the applicant “a global sum of 6,000 (six thousand) euros for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses.”
19. In a letter dated 6 January 2011 the applicant stated that he agreed that the sum offered to him by the Government could in principle amount to sufficient just satisfaction in his case, but pointed to the Government’s failure to acknowledge violations of Article 3 (ill-treatment) and Article 6 of the Convention (excessive length of proceedings).
20. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified in (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court, in particular, 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”.
21. It also recalls that, in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government, even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
22. To this end, the Court will carefully examine the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
23. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration of 1 September 2010, as amended in their letter of 30 November 2010, and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005). In so doing, the Court takes due note of the fact that the issues raised in the present case are similar to those examined in Ostrovar v. Moldova (no. 35207/03, § 118, 13 September 2005) and does not find any compelling reasons to reiterate the findings in that case in a new judgment.
24. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
25. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
B. Other complaints
26. The applicant complained that he had been ill-treated during his detention pending trial. As a result, he had made self-incriminating statements which had later been used to convict him.
27. The Court notes that the applicant did not submit any evidence in support of this submission. Having examined the materials of the case, it considers that this complaint is manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
28. The applicant also complained that the courts had wrongfully convicted him and that the proceedings in his case had been excessively lengthy.
29. The Court notes that the proceedings against the applicant started on 26 February 2000 and ended on 8 June 2005. Taking into account that the applicant was detained throughout this period, this could raise an issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
30. However, the Court also notes that during the proceedings before the domestic courts the applicant was treated on an in-patient basis for almost two years. In addition, the courts had to suspend the proceedings on several occasions – as, for example, on 15 March 2005 when a new lawyer hired by the applicant asked for time to study the case file.
31. Moreover, the case concerned a number of separate crimes and several individuals, including the applicant, had been accused of having committed those crimes as part of an organised group. The case was therefore of some complexity and was examined at three levels of jurisdiction without undue delay. In the Court’s opinion, the complexity of the case and the gravity of the sanction which could be applied to the applicant if he was convicted required his participation in the proceedings, all the more so given that he and his lawyer had not asked for the examination of his case in his absence. However, for extended periods of time during the proceedings he was in a hospital. In addition, on a number of occasions he or his lawyer was absent and the hearings were postponed.
32. Therefore, in the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the proceedings against the applicant could not be seen as having lasted for an excessive period of time.
33. Moreover, the refusal to hear witness N. in 2005 (see paragraph 4 above), after her statements made to the investigator had been annexed to the file and after many other witnesses had been heard during the previous years, did not affect the proceedings in a substantial manner so as to raise an issue under Article 6 of the Convention.
34. The Court considers that the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
35. Having examined the materials in the case file, the Court does not see any appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 5, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Accordingly, these complaints are manifestly ill founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; and
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy