THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 35436/08 Stanislav BOGDANOVICI against the Republic of Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta, President, Luis López Guerra, Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 June 2008,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 April 2013 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

1 . The applicant, Mr Stanislav Bogdanovici, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Straseni. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Rahlea, a lawyer practising in Chisinau.

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

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . On 20 November 2005 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on charges of theft. After arrest he had allegedly been subjected to ill-treatment in order to induce him to confess.

5 . On 14 June 2006 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight years ’ imprisonment. On 21 November 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant and reduced the sentence to five years and two months. On 5 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal on points of law.

6 . In the meantime the applicant complained to the Prosecutor ’ s Office about his alleged ill-treatment. However, his complaint was not successful.

7 . Throughout his detention the applicant was detained in two detention facilities. In particular, he was detained on three different occasions in Prison No. 13 between the following dates: 14 December 2005 – 4 February 2007 (the first period of detention), 5 April 2007 – 19 April 2007 (the second period of detention) and 10 May 2007 – 7 February 2008 (the third period of detention). The rest of the time he was detained in Prison No. 9.

8 . The part of the application concerning the conditions of detention during the third period of detention had been communicated to the Government .

COMPLAINTS

9 . The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he has been subjected to ill-treatment and, in support of his allegations, invites the Court to contact the persons with whom he shared the cell at the time and who could confirm his allegations.

10 . The applicant also complains under Article 3 about the poor conditions of his detention in Prison No. 13.

11 . The applicant further complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that it had no legal basis.

12 . Finally, the applicant contends that the criminal proceedings against him have not been fair as required by Article 6 of the Convention and that they have been excessively long. Since the courts failed to take into consideration his arguments, the applicant also submits that he did not have an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

A. The complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention between 10 May 2007 and 7 February 2008

13 . On 15 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with the following content:

“The Government acknowledge that there has been a breach of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention because of the inadequate conditions of his detention between 10 May 2007 and 7 February 2008.

The Government propose to award the applicant a global sum of EUR 4,000. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses will be converted into Moldovan Lei at the date 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 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 Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37§ 1 (c) of the Convention.”

14 . In a letter of 1 July 2013 the applicant expressed the view that the Government ’ s unilateral declaration should not be accepted by the Court because the amount proposed by the Government was insufficient. He expressed the view that he was entitled to compensation in the amount of EUR 40,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 60,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.

15 . The Court notes 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) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list in particular if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

16 . Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the proviso that:

“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

17 . The Court also notes that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof 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 will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Melnic v. Moldova , no. 6923/03, §§ 22-25, 14 November 2006).

18 . Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s unilateral declaration and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Haritonov v. Moldova , no. 15868/07 , 5 July 2011 ), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar , cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005)).

19 . 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Accordingly it should be struck out of the list.

B. Remaining complaints

20 . In so far as the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the first two periods of detention and the complaint under Article 5 are concerned, the Court notes that they were lodged more than six months after the alleged breaches took place, and therefore they must be declared inadmissible under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

21 . As to the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning his alleged ill-treatment by the police, the Court notes that the applicant did not submit any evidence to support his allegation. Similarly, the Court notes that there is nothing in the file to suggest that his rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 have been violated. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

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 part of the application concerning the applicant ’ s complaint under Article 3 about the poor conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 during the last period of his detention in that prison out of its list of cases in accordance with Artic le 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar President