THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32476/09
Calin VIERU
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 15 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Calin Vieru, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Bordei and Mr A. Carapunarli, lawyers practising in Chişinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicant complained about a breach of his rights guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention as a result of defamation of his late father.
On 7 February 2014 the Court received a friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Republic of Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 5,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 euros for costs and expenses. The above amounts shall be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. In the event of failure to pay these sums within a 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 case.
THE LAW
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. 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy