FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2856/05
by Eugenia MUSAJI and Petru MADAN
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2004,
Having regard to the Government’s unilateral declaration and the applicants’ acceptance of its terms,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Eugenia Musaji and Mr Petru Madan, who are Moldovan nationals born in 1953 and 1958 respectively and living in Chişinău. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Lupu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicants complained that they had been unlawfully detained and ill-treated contrary to Articles 5 and 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 28 October 2009 the Court received a unilateral declaration signed by the Government under which the latter acknowledged a violation of each of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention and offered 5,000 euros (EUR) to the first applicant and EUR 3,500 to the second applicant in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused, as well as EUR 1,000 to each applicant for costs and expenses. These sums 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 these sums 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 Government requested the Court to strike the case out of its list.
On and 13 November 2009 the applicants’ lawyer informed the Court that his clients had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration and invited the Court to proceed with the examination of the Government’s request and to strike the case out of its list of cases.
The Court considers that the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government can be considered as an implied friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore 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 AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy