THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12197/08
by Valeriu GABURĂ
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 March 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2008,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 2 July 2010 and 29 October 2010 and the applicant’s acceptance of their terms,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Valeriu Gabură, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1971 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Zamă, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant worked for the criminal police in Hînceşti. Following a voluntary confession made by I.F., on 2 February 2007 the Chişinău prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings against seven persons, including I.F. and the applicant. They were accused of stealing cattle from various persons in the Hînceşti region.
On 7 February 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of stealing property, causing considerable damage to the owners.
On 9 February 2007 the Rîşcani District Court accepted the prosecutor’s request to order the applicant’s detention for ten days. The court found that:
“... [the applicant] is accused of a particularly serious offence for which the criminal law provides for a punishment of more than two years’ detention; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities and could obstruct the search for the truth in the criminal proceedings; he could influence the other parties to the criminal proceedings.”
The applicant asked on a number of occasions to be released pending trial. By their decisions of 15, 21 February, 14, 17 March, 15 May, 15 June, 6 July, 11, 20 October, 22 November, 20 and 27 December 2007 the courts rejected the applicant’s requests and extended his detention pending trial, relying on the same grounds as before.
On 5 August 2008 the applicant was convicted by the first-instance court.
On 8 March 2010 the Court decided to communicate to the Government the complaint raised under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
By letter dated 2 July 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the domestic courts’ failure to give sufficient reasons for ordering and extending the applicant’s detention pending trial. They considered that such an acknowledgement afforded sufficient just satisfaction to the applicant and asked the Court to strike the application from its list of cases.
By letter dated 29 November 2010 the Government submitted a further declaration. They repeated their acknowledgement of a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. They also undertook to pay the applicant 3,500 (three thousand five hundred) euros (EUR) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The payment would be effected within a period of three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay within that period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
By letter of 7 December 2010, received by the Court on 7 January 2011, the applicant informed the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declarations and invited the Court to proceed with the examination of the Government’s request and to strike the case out of its list of cases.
THE LAW
The Court considers that the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government can be considered as an implied friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore 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 TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy