CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 mars 2011

.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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sDD0159ED { width:203.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 44712/06 by Maia LAGUTA against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   March 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Egbert Myjer, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2006, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Maia Laguta, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău. She is represented before the Court by Mr   O.   Mancevschi, 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 17 August 2005 the applicant lodged an application with the Chişinău Municipality to hold a demonstration together with a group of persons in front of the Government building on 18 September 2005 in order to protest against the Government’s social policy. On 13 September 2005 the Chişinău Municipal Council adopted a decision authorising the applicant to hold her protest demonstration in front of the Chişinău circus. On 8 November 2005 the applicant lodged an application with the Chişinău Municipality to hold a protest demonstration together with a group of persons in front of the Government building on 23, 24 and 25   November 2005. On 18 November 2005 the Chişinău Municipal Council adopted a decision authorising the applicant to hold a demonstration only on 23   November 2005 in front of the Chişinău circus. On unspecified dates the applicant contested before the domestic courts the Municipality’s decisions of 13 September and 18 November 2005. However, her actions were dismissed by final judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice on 25 January and 8 February 2006. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair because the domestic courts had wrongly applied the relevant domestic law. 2.     The applicant also complained under Article 9 of the Convention that her right to freedom of thought and conscience had been breached. 3.     Finally the applicant complained under Article 11 of the Convention that her right to freedom of peaceful assembly had been violated. THE LAW On 14 February 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova accepts that there has been a breach of Article 11 of the Convention in the present case and offer to pay the sum of 3,000 (three thousand) euros to Ms   Maia   Laguta, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 undertake to pay simple interest on it, from 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.” On 21 February 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Oleg Mancevschi, note that the Government of Moldova accept that there has been a breach of Ms   Maia Laguta’s rights guaranteed under Article 11 of the Convention and are prepared to pay to her 3,000 (three thousand) euros with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sum in euros will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. It will 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Having consulted my client, I would inform you that she accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. She declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the 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). 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Egbert Myjer Deputy Registrar   President