FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35316/06
by Alexandru LEAGUN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Alexandru Leagun, a Moldovan national who was born in 1939 and lives in Orhei. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Bătrîncea, a lawyer practising in Orhei. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour.
On 12 November 2008 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to communicate the application to the Government.
On 20 August 2010 and 6 September 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 8,704 euros (EUR) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This amount would be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 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 would constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
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 AracıDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy