CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; 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 } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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. 41244/04 by Ion MARDEASOV against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2004, 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 declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ion Mardeasov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1973 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr   V. Pelin, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vladimir Grosu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1999 the applicant was charged with a military offence and remanded in custody for two months. However he was later acquitted of all charges. After his acquittal the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State and claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation for wrongful prosecution. By a final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 19 April 2001 the applicant was awarded 2,598 Moldovan lei (MDL) for pecuniary damage and MDL 125,000 for non-pecuniary damage. After that date, the applicant requested on numerous occasions the authorities responsible for the enforcement of judgments to enforce the judgment of 19 April 2001. The judgment was enforced on 19 November 2004. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment of 19 April 2001 within a reasonable time. THE LAW On 20 December 2006 the Government informed the Court that on 19   December 2006 the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement. They submitted to the Court a copy of the agreement according to which the Government had undertaken to pay the applicant, within three months from the date of the adoption of a strike-out decision by the Court, 1,709 euros in respect of any damage suffered by the applicant. In return, the applicant would request the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. The Government requested the Court to strike out the present application. On the same date the applicant also informed the Court that the parties had signed a friendly settlement agreement along the above-mentioned lines and stated that he did not wish to pursue his 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). 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