THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 22966/13 Roman STEFOGLO against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Dragoljub Popović , President, Kristina Pardalos , Valeriu Griţco , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2013 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the Government and to the applicant ’ s acceptance of its terms ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Roman Stefoglo , is a Moldovan national, who w as born in 1992 and live s in Cazaclia. He w as represented before the Court by Ms V. Mihailov , a lawyer practising in Chi ș inău .

The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about ill ‑ treatment at the hands of the police and under Article 5 about unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital.

On 30 June 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They acknowledged a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs and a breach of Article 5 of the Convention. The Government also undert ook to pay the applicant 20,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses . This amount w as to be converted into Moldovan currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and was to be free of any taxes that may be applicable . It would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 would constitute the final resolution of the case.

In his letter of 21 October 2014, the applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration.

THE LAW

The Court considers that the applicant ’ s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government shall be considered as a friendly settlement between the parties (see Cēsnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 9278/06, § 34, 6 March 2012, and Bakal and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 8243/08, 5 June 2012).

The Court therefore 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 e xamination 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 c ases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.

Marialena Tsirli Dragoljub Popović              Deputy Registrar President