SECOND SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 17 November 2020
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
Application no. 73736/12
I.N.
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 October 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Carlo Ranzoni,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 November 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Ms O. Doronceanu and N. Mardari-Grebencea, lawyers practising in Chișinău, in collaboration with the Moldovan Institute for Human Rights.[1]
On 26 July 2007 the applicant, a Russian national, married a Moldovan national and in August 2007 moved to the Republic of Moldova. However, his subsequent application for a temporary residence permit was rejected because he was HIV-positive. He challenged in court that decision and claimed compensation. On 3 November 2011 the Chișinău Court of Appeal annulled the relevant decision and awarded the applicant 3,000 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of approximately 190 euros (EUR) at the time). That decision was upheld on appeal.
In the meantime, on 15 September 2011 the applicant was granted Moldovan citizenship.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention concerning discrimination in issuing him a residence permit owing to his HIV-positive status were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that, after unsuccessful negotiations for a friendly settlement, they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged the violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention in the present case. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table 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 amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.
The applicant asked the Court to reject the Government’s unilateral declaration since the substance of his case would not be examined. He noted that the Government had not made any serious attempt of negotiating a settlement. Moreover, the sum proposed by the Government was too low.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to discrimination on the basis of an individual’s health status (see, for example, Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, §§ 39-74, ECHR 2011, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos. 31039/11 and 4 others, §§ 81-112, 15 March 2016).
Taking note of the admission contained in the Government’s declaration and noting the facts that the domestic courts found a violation of the applicants’ rights in the original proceedings, that he was able to stay in Moldova throughout the relevant period and that, since 15 September 2011, he was no longer subject to any restrictions after obtaining Moldovan citizenship, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
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 and of the arrangements 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 5 November 2020.
Liv TigerstedtBranko Lubarda
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
73736/12
13/11/2012
I.N.
03/08/1974
13/03/2020
16/09/2020
6,750
[1]1. Rectified on 17 November 2020: the original text was: “The applicant was represented by Ms O. Doronceanu, a lawyer practising in Chisinau.”
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy