CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 décembre 2009

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 23270/09 by Johnattan NETANYAHU against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 May 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Johnattan Netanyahu, is a national of Romania and of the United States of America who was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Mihăeş, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.Grosu. On 13 July 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of his alleged ill-treatment and insufficient medical treatment, under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention in respect of the Moldovan authorities’ failure to inform the applicant of the reasons for his arrest and under Article 5 § 3 in respect of the failure by domestic courts to give relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions ordering and then extending the applicant’s detention pending trial. On 30 September 2009 the new Moldovan Minister of Justice declared that the new Government acknowledged the fact that human rights of a number of persons had been violated during the post-electoral events and that the Government intended to secure a friendly settlement of the communicated cases. On 16 October 2009 the Court received from the Government a friendly settlement agreement, signed by the parties, by which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 4,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 would 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President