CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC95ED60 { width:188.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 629/13 Rodion LUPACESCU against the Republic of Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1   July 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Luis López Guerra,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2012, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Rodion Lupacescu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Donica, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol. On 18 October 2012 the Buiucani District Court issued an arrest warrant for ninety days in respect of the applicant for having failed to appear in court. The applicant was remanded on 7 November 2012. He appealed, arguing, inter alia, that neither he nor his representative had been summoned to court. His appeal was dismissed in his and his representative’s absence. His detention was subsequently prolonged. His appeal against that extension was examined twenty days later and dismissed. On 21   February 2014 the applicant was released on bail. Before the Court the applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention of the lack of reasons for his deprivation of liberty and of the insufficient procedural guarantees afforded to him in the proceedings reviewing the lawfulness of his detention. The case was communicated to the Moldovan Government on 13   May   2013. On 14 April 2014 and on 24 April 2014 the Court received a friendly settlement declaration signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Republic of Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 13,000 (thirteen thousand) euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which will be free of any taxes that may be applicable, and to pay the applicant’s representative directly 1,500   (one thousand five hundred) euros to cover any costs and expenses. Both sums 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 taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 will 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. 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 in accordance with Article   37 § 1 b) of the Convention.   Marialena Tsirli   Dragoljub Popović Deputy Registrar   President