CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 2122/16 Alexandr NAVROȚKI against the Republic of Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 July 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 December 2015, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 April 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Alexandr Navroțki, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1979 and is detained in Lipcani. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Navroțkaia, his wife. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari. The application concerns the applicant’s detention in pre-trial detention for three years and ten months before his conviction. He complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention was not lawful under domestic law, because it was too long. The applicant raises other complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. THE LAW After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23 April 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Moldova acknowledge that there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 5 §§ 1, 3, 4 and 13 of the Convention. [...] the Government propose to pay [...], EUR   6,000 (six thousand euros) as just satisfaction 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. [...] the above amount 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 Convention. 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 and of any other claims that may appear from the circumstances of the present case [...]. In conclusion, the Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list, according to the provisions of Article 37§ 1 (c) of the Convention.” By a letter of 30 May 2018, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed by the Government was too small. The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v.   Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration of 23 April 2018 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1 (c) of the Convention) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar , cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no.   53487/99, 1   March   2005)). In the light of all the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 September 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President