CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 mars 2010

.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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s92A1A400 { width:0.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19828/09 by Gabriel STATI and Aurel MARINESCU against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 April 2009, Having regard to the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties, 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: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Gabriel Stati and Aurel Marinescu, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1976 and 1970 respectively and live in Chişinău. Mr Gabriel Stati is also a national of Romania. They were represented before the Court by Mr V. Gribincea and Mr V.   Nagacevschi, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant is the son of a person considered to be one of the most prosperous Moldovan businessmen. His family’s business (Ascom Group) is specialised in the extraction of oil and gas and is located mainly in Kazakhstan but is also doing business in other countries such as Turkmenistan, Sudan and Iraq. The first applicant is also the owner of several companies and sports clubs in Moldova. According to articles from the press submitted by the applicants, the first applicant family’s fortune is estimated at approximately 2.5 billion euros. The second applicant is an employee of one of the first applicant’s companies incorporated in Moldova. According to the applicants, President Voronin and his son, who is considered to be the most prosperous businessman in Moldova, decided to obtain control of the first applicant’s family’s business. In August 2008 Ascom Group made a press statement announcing the withdrawal of its staff from Moldova as a result of pressure. On 6 October 2008 President Voronin wrote to the President of Kazakhstan, inter alia , that Mr Anatol Stati (the first applicant’s father) had been hiding his revenues in off-shore zones and that he had been investing money earned in Kazakhstan in territories which, according to the President, were subject to UN sanctions such as southern Sudan. Mr Stati was also accused of being involved in the non-transparent financing of opposition parties from Moldova and meddling in the internal affairs of Moldova. A copy of this letter became available to the Moldovan press. According to the applicants and to the Moldovan press, President Voronin was planning to visit Kazakhstan at the end of November 2008 and to meet the President of that country. For that purpose two of his representatives met high-ranking officials from that country early in November 2008 and attempted to convince its Government about the danger which Ascom Group presented for Kazakhstan. Since their attempt had not been successful, the visit of President Voronin was postponed for an indefinite period. On 5 April 2009 general elections took place and the Communist Party, which had a majority of votes in the outgoing Parliament, won 60 seats out of the total of 101. On 6 and 7 April 2009 a protest against an alleged electoral fraud took place in the centre of Chişinău. The protest was peaceful in the beginning; however, in the afternoon of 7 April 2009 some of the protesters became violent. Clashes with the police took place and the Parliament building and the Presidential Palace were damaged by stone throwing. A large number of police officers and protesters were injured. At a certain moment the police forces, largely outnumbered by the protesters, abandoned the two buildings, allowing several hundred persons to enter. Those persons destroyed and pillaged the buildings, setting parts of the Parliament alight. On the same night some 200 persons were arrested on accusation of large-scale disorder. The opposition was accused of an attempted coup d’état. On 8 April 2009 at approximately 1 a.m. the applicants left Moldova by car for Odessa, Ukraine. On 8 April 2009 President Voronin gave a speech before an audience about the events of 7 April 2009. During his speech he stated that the first applicant had financed the violent protests of the previous day and that he had fled the country. Also on 8 April 2009 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office issued two orders charging the applicants with the offences of usurping State power and organising mass disorder. According to the Prosecutor’s Office the applicants were guilty of financing and organising groups of persons, mainly involving high school and university students, for the purpose of violently attacking the Parliament building and Presidential Palace and placing the flag of a foreign country on them. On the same day a search warrant was issued by the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the applicants. In the evening of 8 April 2009, at approximately 6.30 p.m., after having passed through passport control, the applicants were onboard a charter aircraft in Odessa ready to take off for Bucharest when the aircraft was stopped on the runway and the applicants were arrested by the local police. In the evening of 8 April 2009 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Centru District Court for a warrant for the arrest of the applicants. The application was examined by an investigating judge after 8 p.m. at the headquarters of the General Police Station. The applicants’ lawyers were not contacted and a pro bono lawyer was appointed. The judge upheld the Prosecutor’s application and ordered the applicants’ arrest and detention for a period of thirty days. The court decisions authorising the applicants’ arrest reproduced the accusations against the applicants and gave as reasons for their detention the fact that the applicants were suspected of having committed a very serious offence punishable with more than two years’ imprisonment and that they were hiding from the prosecution. According to the court there were sufficient reasons to believe that the applicants could hinder the investigation and endanger State security if not arrested. The decisions did not explain what those reasons were. On 9 April 2009 the Malinovski District Court of Odessa issued a warrant for the applicants’ detention for a period of five days. The reason for detaining them in custody was the need to clarify whether the detention warrant issued by a Moldovan court on 8 April 2009 was final or not. The applicants’ Ukrainian lawyer complained about the applicants’ detention to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine arguing that the applicants had been arrested without any legal basis because at the moment of their arrest there had been no detention warrants issued by the Moldovan authorities. On 10 April 2009 the applicants’ Moldovan lawyers contested the detention warrants of 8 April 2009 before the Chişinău Court of Appeal. The lawyers submitted, inter alia , that there was no reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences imputed to them and that the court orders had not been based on sufficient reasons for detention. On 13 April 2009 the applicants requested political asylum from the Ukrainian authorities on the ground that they were victims of political repression in Moldova and that their extradition to Moldova could endanger their lives. Also on 13 April 2009 the Malinovski Disctrict Court of Odessa decided to prolong the applicants’ detention until 17 April 2009. On 15 April 2009 the applicants were extradited to Moldova and placed in detention by the Moldovan authorities. It appears that their request for asylum had not been examined by the Ukrainian authorities and that they had no chance to challenge the extradition decision. On 22 April 2009 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Centru District Court of 8 April 2009. The court found that the fact of initiating criminal proceedings against the applicants by the Prosecutor’s Office constituted sufficient grounds for holding that there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed an offence. As to the reasons for detention, the court found that the applicants could abscond as they had already done by leaving Moldova for Ukraine on 8   April 2009. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion to justify their arrest and detention. 2.     The applicants further complained about a violation of their right to be presumed innocent. In particular they refer to the declaration of President Voronin to the effect that they had financed the street violence of 7   April 2009. 3.     Finally, they complained under Article 18 of the Convention that their detention had a purpose other than that provided for in Article 5 § 1 (c) and Article   6 of the Convention, namely that the real reason for the applicants’ arrest had been the intention to force the first applicant’s family to sell its business and to prevent it from financing opposition parties in the general elections. THE LAW On 12 February 2010 the Court received a friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties and by the first applicant’s father, Mr Anatol Stati. According to the agreement, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right guaranteed by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their arrest and detention between April and July 2009 in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that they had committed a criminal offence. Referring to the facts relied on by the applicants, the Government also acknowledged the existence of a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and by Article   18 of the Convention taken together with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. For their part, the applicants agreed that the mere acknowledgement of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for them. They declared that they had no further claims of a pecuniary, non-pecuniary or other nature against the Government of the Republic of Moldova in relation to the present case. The first applicant, on behalf of the companies belonging to him and to his family, declared that those companies did not have any claims against the Government of the Republic of Moldova in relation to the present case. At the same time, the applicants declared that their waiving of their right to compensation against the respondent Government in relation to the present case did not mean that they or the companies belonging to them or to the first applicant’s family had waived their right to compensation against other governments or third parties. Finally, the applicants declared that they did not intend to pursue application no. 19828/09 before the Court. 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.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar President