SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40821/06
Veaceslav MURZACOV and others
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 October 2006,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 9 March 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Veaceslav Murzacov, Timofei Sutac and Vladimir Aga are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1963, 1977 and 1971 respectively and live in Chișinău. The applicants were represented by Tudor Ciorap, practising in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Government. The applicants are no longer in detention.
On 9 March 2015 the Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.
The Government acknowledged the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. They offered to pay the applicants EUR 3,000 each as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and cost and expenses, and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants failed to comment on the terms of the declaration.
THE LAW
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 wished 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 (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2004‑III, 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 9 March 2015, but also to the applicants’ failure to submit claims under Article 41 of the Convention and comments to the above unilateral declaration, the Court does not deem it necessary to examine the amount awarded by the Government in that respect in the circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the present application in accordance with the provisions of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 3 and 13 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016.
Hasan BakırcıStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy