FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31428/05
by Anatolie DEINEGO
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatolie Deinego, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bălţi. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the director of a shop which sells computer equipment. On 3 December 2004 an inspector of the State Agency on Copyright of the Republic of Moldova (“the Agency”) drew up a report according to which one of the employees of the shop had sold digital video discs (“DVD”), containing audiovisual works, in breach of third party copyrights.
During the proceedings before the Bălţi District Court, the Agency submitted an expert report (raport de expertiză), dated 8 December 2004, according to which the sale of DVDs in the absence of special marks, issued by the Agency, and of licence agreements with the holders of copyright constituted a counterfeit. The report did not bear the signature of the director of the Agency.
On 3 March 2005 the Bălţi District Court found the applicant guilty of committing the administrative offence prescribed by Article 51/2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“CAO”). The District Court relied, inter alia, on the report of 8 December 2004 and ordered the applicant to pay a fine of 3,600 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 218 euros (EUR) at the time).
The applicant appealed, claiming that the Agency lacked the competence to draft the report of 3 December 2004. He also claimed that the expert report of 8 December 2004 should not have been accepted as evidence by the District Court, since it had been drafted by an interested party and that it had not been signed by the director of the Agency.
By a final judgment of 20 April 2005 the Bălţi Court of Appeal examined the appeal in his absence and dismissed it. According to the applicant, he was not summoned to attend the hearing.
It is unknown whether the applicant has paid the fine.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained of a violation of his right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that no effective remedies were available to him in order to appeal the judgment of 20 April 2005 to the Supreme Court of Justice.
THE LAW
On 20 March 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the parties:
“The Parties to the present agreement:
Taking into account that application no. 31428/05 Deinego v. Moldova is on the docket of the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant contending a violation of his rights guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 (...) of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as a result of the failure to summon him to the hearing of the Bălţi Court of Appeal of 20 April 2005;
have agreed as follows:
1. The Government of the Republic of Moldova agrees to pay to Mr Anatolie Deinego EUR 800 (eight hundred euros) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused and for any costs and expenses with a view to securing a friendly settlement agreement of the above-mentioned case. These amounts will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate 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.
2. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
3. The applicant declares that all her claims were satisfied and will withdraw her application no. 31428/05 Deinego v. Moldova lodged with the European Court and communicated to the Government on 8 December 2008.
4. The applicant declares that she will not have any further claims of a pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature or for any other damage resulting from the circumstances of the present case.
5. The parties will inform the Court of the agreement reached.”
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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy