CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 juin 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9D5ED0F7 { width:218.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28495/03 by Totraz SOSKIEV against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal parties’ declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Totraz Soskiev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1948 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr   V. Nagacevschi, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   V.   Grosu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 14 November 2000 the applicant was arrested by the Information and Security Service (“ISS”) and placed in its remand centre. The applicant alleged that no charges were brought against him. He was released on 16   November 2000 after allegedly having been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finances and ISS seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from his unlawful detention. On 9 July 2001 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him 250,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (the equivalent of 19,464 euros (EUR) at the time). The parties appealed and by a judgment of 19   November 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the appeals, quashed the judgment of 9   July   2001 and ordered the case to be re-tried by the first-instance court. On 3 June 2002 the Buiucani District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 250,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and MDL 7,500 (EUR 584 at the time) for legal costs. The parties appealed. On 18 September 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the defendants’ appeals. The Court reduced the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 150,000 (EUR 11,457) and for legal costs to MDL 5,000 (EUR 382). The parties lodged appeals on points of law. By a final judgment of 26 December 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the defendants’ appeals on points of law and reduced the award for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 50,000 (EUR 3,493). Following a request by the ISS, on 12   February   2003 the Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment of the final judgment of 26   December 2002 and asked for a reduction in the amount of damages. On 2 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the final judgment in favour of the applicant. The Supreme Court adopted a new judgment and reduced the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 10,000 (EUR 630 at the time) and for legal costs to MDL 1,500 (EUR 94 at the time). Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General to lodge a request with the Supreme Court of Justice in order to quash its judgment of 2 April 2003 and to discontinue the annulment proceedings. He contended that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant following the annulment proceedings had breached his rights under the Convention. On 26   October   2004 the Deputy Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent’s request. He lodged a revision request relying on section 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure and claimed that the applicants and the Government intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement. By a judgment of 2 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Deputy Prosecutor General’s request for revision on the ground that he had not submitted any evidence of the alleged friendly settlement. COMPLAINTS In his initial application the applicant complained about a breach of his rights under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention (alleged ill-treatment, unlawful detention, length of the proceedings, lack of reasons and bias of the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, during the proceedings on 2 April 2003). However, the applicant later informed the Court that he did not want to pursue those complaints. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the quashing by the Supreme Court of the final judgment of 26 December 2002 as a result of the Deputy Prosecutor General’s request for annulment. THE LAW On 4 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that on 4   May 2007 the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement. They submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement according to which the Government had acknowledged that there had been a breach of the applicant’s rights under the Convention and had undertaken to pay him, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, EUR 4,500 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses. The Government requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases. On 12   May   2007 the applicant also informed the Court that the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement along the above-mentioned lines and that he wished to discontinue the examination of the application. 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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President