THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54255/08
Ruslan JUBIRCA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ján Šikuta,
Ineta Ziemele,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 November 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Ruslan Jubirca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bălţi. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Malic and Mr I. Oancea, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
At the time of the events the applicant was the manager of a construction company. In October 2005 the applicant was charged with the offence of breach of rules of labour security leading to the death of a person. In particular, he was accused that one of the workers employed by his company, P.P., fell down from the second floor of a building and died. According to the accusation, the worker in question had not been equipped with any security equipment. The applicant disputed the accusation and argued that no worker named P.P. had worked for his company and no accidents had taken place at any of the company’s construction sites.
On 13 December 2006 the Bălţi District Court acquitted the applicant. After hearing the accusation and the defence witnesses, it came to the conclusion that there was no reliable evidence that P.P. had been employed by the applicant’s company and that the accident involving P.P. had taken place on the applicant’s company’s construction site.
On 13 December 2008 the Bălţi Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor’s Office and reversed the judgment of the first instance court. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not hear anew the witnesses but merely relied on their submissions as recorded by the inferior court. The applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended for one year. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this judgment and argued, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had failed to examine the evidence and to hear the witnesses before reaching its conclusion.
On 7 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair because the Bălţi Court of Appeal had convicted him without examining the evidence and hearing the witnesses.
2. The applicant also complained under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention that he had been a victim of discrimination in that the Supreme Court had ruled differently in other similar cases. Namely the applicant gave several examples of cases in which the Supreme Court had held that a person could not be convicted for the first time on appeal without a full re-examination of the evidence.
THE LAW
On 29 November 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova accept that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and offer to pay to Mr Ruslan Jubirca, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 4,000 (four thousand euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
This sum will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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.”
On 21 November 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Gheorghe Malic, the applicant’s representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova accept that there has been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and are prepared to pay to Mr Ruslan Jubirca, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 4,000 (four thousand euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to to the applicant.
This sum will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy