THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7347/04
by Alexandr IUDIN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Ján Šikuta,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2004,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 March 2011 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
The applicant, Mr Alexandr Iudin, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Ms E. Iudin. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Between 2002 and 2004 the applicant was detained on remand in Prison no. 3, where, according to him, the conditions of detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In particular, the cells were overcrowded and the inmates had to take turns for sleeping. The cells were dirty and infested with vermin.
The applicant complained about the poor conditions of detention to numerous State bodies, including to the Prosecutor General’s Office. In a letter dated 15 January 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office admitted that the prison in question was overcrowded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention in Prison no. 3. He also complains, without giving any details, about the alleged breach of his rights guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
On 22 March 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with the following content:
“The Government acknowledge that there has been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 3 of the Convention [...]
The Government is ready to award the applicant a lump sum of EUR 3,000. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses will be converted into Moldovan Lei at the date applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 undertake 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.
In the lights of the above-mentioned, the Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37§ 1 (c) of the Convention.”
In a letter of 15 May 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the Government’s unilateral declaration should not be accepted by the Court because the amount proposed by the Government was insufficient.
The Court notes 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 under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list in particular if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court also notes that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 22-25, 14 November 2006).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration of 22 March 2011 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 118, 13 September 2005; Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, § 85, 4 October 2005 and Grosu v. Moldova (dec.), no. 36170/05, 7 June 2010), 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 (cited above) and does not find any compelling reasons to reiterate the findings in that case in a new judgment.
In the light of all 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.
Remaining complaint
In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 of the Convention is concerned, and assuming that the applicant exhausted all available domestic remedies, the Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate this complaint. Accordingly, this part of the application 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes notes of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above-mentioned complaint;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy