FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11367/06
by Nicolae POPESCU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 June 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nicolae Popescu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant was the director of a State-owned recreational centre. On 26 October 2005 the General Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs initiated a criminal investigation concerning an alleged misappropriation by the applicant of 35,584 Moldovan lei (MDL).
Before the formal initiation of the criminal proceedings, on 7 October 2005, an investigating judge authorised the interception of the applicant's telephone communications for a period of thirty days.
On 17 January 2006 during questioning, the applicant was informed about the interception of his communications.
On 19 January 2006 the applicant lodged a court action with the Buiucani District Court, challenging the lawfulness of the measure of interception of his communications. He requested the judge, inter alia, to find that there had been a breach of his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention and to award him compensation.
On 6 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court dismissed the applicant's action and found that the measure of interception had been lawfully applied to him.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had not been fair. In particular, he argued that he had not had access to the materials of the case file, that the judge had not been independent and impartial and that he and the prosecutor had not had equal rights in the proceedings.
2. The applicant further complained that his right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention had been breached as a result of the interception of his communications.
3. The applicant finally argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, he had not had an effective remedy in respect of the alleged breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The complaint under Article 8 of the Convention
On 1 February 2010 the Government informed the Court that, in the light of the recent judgment in the case of Iordachi and Others v. Moldova (no. 25198/02, 10 February 2009), they were ready to acknowledge a breach of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case on the ground that the legislation in the field of interception of telephone communications did not contain sufficient guarantees against abuse. The Government offered to pay the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for any non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings.
In a letter of 6 May 2010 the applicant's representative welcomed the acknowledgement by the Government of the breach of Article 8 of the Convention but at the same time expressed the view that the Government's unilateral declaration should not be accepted by the Court because the amount proposed by the Government was insufficient. Furthermore, the Government had failed to distinguish the amount reserved for the lawyer's fees. In his opinion, the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be equal to EUR 3,000 and for costs and expenses EUR 2,800.
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 wishes 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, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, 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 8 October 2009 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government, which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Dumitru Popescu v. Romania (no. 2), no. 71525/01, § 116, 26 April 2007 and Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 114, 28 June 2007), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005)). In so doing, the Court takes due note of the fact that the issues raised in the present case are similar to those examined in Iordachi (cited above) and does not find any compelling reasons to reiterate the findings in that case in a new judgment.
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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.
Remaining complaints
In so far as the applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention is concerned, and assuming the applicability of that provision, the Court considers that it does not raise any separate issues. In any event, it is noted that the applicant failed to substantiate this complaint. As to the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in Iordachi it dismissed a similar complaint (see Iordachi, cited above, § 56).
Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes notes of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration concerning the applicant's complaint under Article 8 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 so far as it relates to the above-mentioned complaint;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy