FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36170/05
by Victor GROSU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2005,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 June 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
The applicant, Mr Victor Grosu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1972 and is detained in Cricova prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms E. Grosu. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant is currently serving a twenty year prison sentence. Between September 2003 and the time of lodging the present application, he was detained in the Ialoveni detention facility and in Chişinău Prison no. 3. 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 in sleeping. The cells were dirty and infested with vermin. The food was inadequate and the inmates were not provided with appropriate medical assistance.
The applicant complained about the poor conditions of detention to numerous State bodies, including the Prosecutor General’s Office.
During the criminal proceedings the applicant was assisted by a pro bono lawyer. According to the applicant the lawyer was inefficient and did not provide him with adequate legal assistance.
On an unspecified date the applicant requested from the prison administration several law books such as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code and others. Since the prison administration refused to provide him with the books, he complained to numerous State organs. He did not initiate proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the poor conditions of detention during his pre-trial detention and about the inappropriate medical care provided to him.
2. He also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because he was not provided with appropriate legal assistance by his lawyer.
3. The applicant finally complained under Article 10 of the Convention about the refusal of the prison authorities to provide him with legal literature.
THE LAW
The complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
On 7 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The Government acknowledged the breach of the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention and undertook to pay the applicant the global sum of 3,000 euros (EUR). This sum would 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 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.
In a letter of 7 September 2010 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 7 June 2010 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government, which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 118, 13 September 2005 and Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, § 85, 4 October 2005), 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 complaints
In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 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. As to the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court considers it to be ill-founded as it does not appear from the facts of the case that there has been any interference with the applicant’s rights guaranteed by that Article.
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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy