CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 janvier 2012

.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 } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21867/09 Ionel BIGEA against Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   January 2012 as a Сhamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ján Šikuta,   Ineta Ziemele,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Ionel Bigea, is an Romanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Bârlad. He was represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Postică, 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. The applicant is a priest within the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and has been assigned to the church of the Vadul lui Isac village, in the south of Moldova, for the last sixteen years. In 2007 the then President of Moldova Vladimir Voronin declared that he did not recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. After that, the authorities made an unsuccessful attempt to expulse the applicant from Moldova and created numerous obstacles in his activity as a priest. Following judicial proceedings, in 2008 the applicant obtained a residence permit and a work permit valid until August 2009. On 9 April 2009 the Moldovan authorities introduced a visa regime with Romania. On 11 April 2009 the applicant made an attempt to travel from Romania to Moldova with his residence permit but was refused entry on Moldovan territory on the ground that he did not have a visa. The applicant challenged the refusal before the Chişinău Court of Appeal and, on 24 April 2009, obtained a final judgment ruling the refusal unlawful and obliging the border police to allow the applicant to enter the Moldovan territory on the basis of his residence permit. On the same date the applicant made an unsuccessful attempt to enter Moldova on the basis of his residence permit and of the court judgment. The border police refused to comply with the judgment and insisted that the applicant needed a visa. The applicant repeated his attempt on 25 April 2009 but was again unsuccessful. Because of the refusal of the authorities to let the applicant enter Moldova, he was unable to be with his congregation for Easter, a very important religious event in Moldova. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the refusal of the authorities to comply with the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 24 April 2009 constituted a breach of his rights guaranteed by Articles 6, 8, 9 and 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. THE LAW On 29 November 2011 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 offer to pay Mr Ionel Bigea, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 2,500   (two thousand five hundred euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This sum will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 15 November 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “I, Alexandru Postica, the applicant’s representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova are prepared to pay Mr   Ionel   Bigea, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 2,500   (two thousand five hundred euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to to the applicant. This sum will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He 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.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President