THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38397/05
Octavian DOROGAN
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 March 2015 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Ján Šikuta,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 September 2014 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:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Octavian Dorogan, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Chisinau. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Bivol, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
2. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
3. On 25 July 2003 the applicant together with two friends had a quarrel with the employees of a bar. The police were called and at approximately 3 a.m. they were taken to a police station. At the police station the applicant was assaulted by a police officer, who banged his head against a wall several times. After that, the applicant felt ill and in the morning an ambulance was called. He was taken in a state of unconsciousness to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with head trauma and concussion and was hospitalised for approximately two months.
4. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the actions of the police; however, it was finally dismissed by the Rascani District Court as ill-founded on 29 April 2005.
5. Later the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the State claiming compensation, inter alia, for the alleged ill-treatment. By a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 14 January 2008 he was awarded 5,000 Moldovan Lei (the equivalent of some 265 Euros (EUR)).
6. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
7. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill-treatment received at the hands of the police and about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his complaints about that.
8. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 September 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the 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:
“The Government acknowledge that the applicant had suffered a breach of his rights guaranteed by Articles 3 of the Convention and Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3of the Convention, as a result of insufficient compensation for ill-treatment and ineffective investigation thereof, which was awarded by the Supreme Court’s judgment of 14 February 2008.
The Government propose to award the applicant EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damages and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.
[...] the above sums, [...] will be converted into Moldovan Lei at the date applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. They 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 these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 and of any other claims that may appear from the circumstances of the present case.
In the light 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.”
9. By a letter of 7 November 2014, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amounts proposed by the Government were insufficient. He submitted that in August 2014 he had suffered a stroke and argued that there was a causal link between the ill-treatment received in 2003 and the stroke.
10. 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”.
11. 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.”
12. 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).
13. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration of 16 September 2014 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see I.D. v. Moldova, no. 47203/06, § 57, 30 November 2010 and Bisir and Tulus v. Moldova, no. 42973/05, § 68, 17 May 2011), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination 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 far as the applicant’s allegation that the stroke suffered by him in August 2014 was a result of the ill-treatment suffered in 2003 is concerned, the Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate it and that the medical documents provided by him do not support the allegation.
14. 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2015.
Stephen PhillipsJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy