FOURTH SECTION
DECISION[*]
Application no. 32737/03
by Lilia LIPCAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Lilia Lipcan, is an Moldovan national who was born in 1963 and lives in Călăraşi. She was represented before the Court by Mr Lilian Osoian, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
At the time of the events the applicant was working in Portugal. On an unspecified date she was charged with fraud by the Moldovan authorities and on 20 November 2002 she was extradited to Moldova on the basis of an international search warrant. After arriving in Moldova she was arrested and placed in detention in the Călăraşi Police Station detention centre. She was held there until 16 June 2003 and then periodically during the days in which she had hearings in the criminal proceedings, until January 2004.
According to the applicant her cell was located in the basement of the police station which had no natural light. On numerous occasions the electric light was disconnected for periods of up to three days. She was allowed to have daily walks for only fifteen minutes. However, sometimes no walks at all were allowed. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell and there were no means of maintaining hygiene in the cell. There was no sink or shower and the cell was infested with vermin. The food served to the inmates was of a very bad quality. Instead of beds, there were wooden shelves with no mattresses, pillows, blankets or bed linen. The state of her health deteriorated due to the conditions in which she was detained. She did not submit, however, any medical evidence.
The Government denied all the above allegations and submitted that the conditions in the Călăraşi Police Station detention centre did not amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.
On 20 June 2003 the applicant submitted a habeas corpus request. By a decision of the same date, the Călăraşi District Court dismissed the request. The applicant appealed against the decision; however, her appeal was never examined.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of detention at the Călăraşi Police Station amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
2. The applicant further complained that the domestic courts’ failure to examine her appeal against the decision of the Călăraşi District Court of 20 June 2003 amounted to a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
3. The applicant submitted that the failure of the domestic courts to examine her appeal against the decision of the Călăraşi District Court of 20 June 2003 amounted also to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 11 July 2007 the applicant informed the Court that on the same date the parties had signed a friendly-settlement agreement. She submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement according to which the Government had undertaken to pay the applicant, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, 10,000[*] euros (EUR) in respect of any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and EUR 1,000 in respect of costs and expenses. In return, the applicant would withdraw her application and abandon any further claims against the Government in connection with the present case. The applicant requested the Court to strike out the present application.
On 12 July 2007 the Government also informed the Court that the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement along the above-mentioned lines and requested that the case be struck out of the list of cases.
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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[*] This decision was rectified on 23 October 2007 pursuant to Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
[*]As rectified on 23 October 2007 pursuant to Rule 81 of the Rules of Court
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy