FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48522/06
by Valeriu POIA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2006,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Valeriu Poia, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 May 2006 a decapitated cat, a grenade and a picture of the applicant's ex-wife were found on the staircase of the latter's apartment building. In this connection, a criminal investigation was initiated. On the same date the applicant's car was searched and a pin from a grenade similar to that found near the victim's apartment was found in the boot.
On the same date the applicant was arrested and placed in detention. Two days later a request for his remand in custody was addressed to an investigating judge.
On 2 June 2006 an investigating judge from the Buiucani District Court ordered the applicant's detention for ten days. The judge found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence imputed to him, punishable with more than two years' imprisonment, and that he could abscond, influence witnesses, exercise pressure on the victim and collude with other co-accused persons if not placed in detention.
The applicant challenged the detention order before the Chişinău Court of Appeal and argued, inter alia, that there were no reasons to detain him pending trial. He offered a letter of guarantee issued by a high-ranking priest from the Orthodox Church of Moldova.
On 9 June 2006 the applicant's appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, his detention was prolonged on two occasions on similar grounds until 20 July 2006 when the applicant was released after being acquitted.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his detention.
THE LAW
On 1 February 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“The Government acknowledge that the national courts have failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons in their decisions ordering and extending the applicant's detention on remand, in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention...
The Government propose the global sum of EUR 3,000 as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage as well as for costs and expenses.
The above amount shall be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of settlement and shall be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The money will be paid within three months from the date on which the case will be struck off the list of cases by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the above amount within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it until the date of 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 of the above amount will constitute the final settlement of the present case.”
On 18 March 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant's representative:
“I am empowered to inform the Court that Mr Poia accepts the conditions enunciated in the Government's declaration and agrees with the striking out of this case.”
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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy