CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 }     Communicated on 1 December 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 63507/11 Mihail GOREA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 September 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Mihail Gorea, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Costeşti. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Donică, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 16 July 2008 the Ialoveni District Court found the applicant guilty of opposing and disrespectful conduct towards a police officer and sentenced him to five days of administrative arrest. The applicant appealed and on 12   August 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the district court, returning the case for a re-examination on the merits. On 11 February 2009 the Ialoveni District Court discontinued the administrative proceedings in respect of the applicant for the reason of expiry of the time-limit for applying an administrative sanction. Meanwhile, the applicant had already served his administrative arrest. The applicant appealed and on 13 March 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the district court and discontinued the administrative proceedings in respect of the applicant for lack of corpus delicti . The applicant brought an action under Law No. 1545 seeking 300,000   Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to 18,750 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from unlawful detention for five days and 10,000 MDL (EUR 625) in compensation for the legal costs. On 11   May 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice concluded that the applicant’s administrative arrest had been unlawful and awarded him MDL   8,000 (equivalent to EUR 500) as compensation for the damage caused and MDL   5,000 (EUR 312) for legal costs, concluding that this amount was fair because “the amount of compensation should have a compensatory effect and should not constitute excessive amounts for the authors, nor unjustified income for the victims”. This judgment was final. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Law No. 1545 of 25 February 1998 provides for compensation for damage caused by the illegal acts of the criminal investigating authorities, prosecution and courts (illegal arrest, detention and administrative arrest) to be paid to persons acquitted in criminal or administrative proceedings or in respect of whom such proceedings were terminated on rehabilitation grounds. The relevant provisions of the Law were set out in Sarban v.   Moldova , no. 3456/05, § 54, 4 October 2005. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains that his right not to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty was infringed, in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 2.     He also complains of the insufficient compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result of his unlawful detention, in breach of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant for his unlawful deprivation of liberty, can he still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention in the present case?   2.     Do the facts of the case, in particular the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant, disclose a violation of Article 5 §   5 of the Convention (see Ganea v. Moldova , no. 2474/06, §   30 ‑ 31, 17 May 2011 and Cristina Boicenco v. Moldova , no. 25688/09, §   43, 27 September 2011)?