SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 59850/09
Gheorghe STEPULEAC
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Stepuleac, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1964 and lives in Chişinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Bivol, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 July 2009 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with the offence of producing counterfeit money and introducing it into circulation.
On 21 July 2009 he was arrested. On 24 July 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office asked the Centru District Court to order the applicant’s remand in custody.
According to the prosecution, the applicant was involved in a scheme for producing and circulating counterfeit United States Dollars.
On 24 July 2009 the Centru District Court partly accepted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s house arrest for a period of 10 days to be calculated from 21 July 2009.
On 27 July 2009 the applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing inter alia that the applicant’s detention had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. The applicant’s lawyer also argued that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to order the applicant’s house arrest.
On 30 July 2009 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as unfounded.
On 31 July 2009 the Centru District Court rejected the prosecutor’s request to extend the applicant’s house arrest for another 30 days and the applicant was released from house arrest.
On an unspecified date the Prosecutor’s Office dropped the charges against the applicant and discontinued the criminal investigation in his respect.
Following the discontinuation of the criminal investigation, the applicant introduced a civil action against the Government in accordance with Law No. 1545 (see the “Relevant domestic law”), claiming compensation of 100,000 Moldovan Lei and 1,000 euros (EUR) for the illegal acts of the investigation organs, the prosecution and the courts. The applicant claimed compensation, inter alia, for illegal detention in custody for three days and illegal house arrest for seven days.
On 28 July 2007 the Rascani District Court partly accepted the applicant’s action and ordered the Government to pay him compensation of EUR 3,777.
The Government challenged that decision in an appeal and, on 15 March 2011, the Chisinau Court of Appeal reduced the amount of compensation to EUR 1,228. Only the Government challenged that decision in an appeal on points of law. However, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed it on 20 October 2011.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of Law no. 1545 on compensation for damage caused by the illegal acts of the criminal investigation organs, prosecution and courts are set out in Sarban v. Moldova (no. 3456/05, § 54, 4 October 2005).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that he was arrested in the absence of reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to order his house arrest. He also complains under Article 18 of the Convention that his arrest was not carried out with a view to investigating a crime but was motivated by political reasons.
THE LAW
The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies, namely the remedy under Law No. 1545, and asked the Court to declare the application inadmissible on that ground.
The applicant disagreed and argued that he had exhausted the remedy suggested by the Government; however, the compensation received had been too small for him to lose his victim status.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right – usually through the courts – the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system (see Balan v. Moldova (dec.), no. 44746/08, 24 January 2012).
Since the applicant failed to lodge an appeal on points of law against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 15 March 2011 which awarded him EUR 1,288, his complaints under Articles 5 and 18 of the Convention must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 April 2016.
Abel CamposNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy