BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
PARNOV v. MOLDOVA
(Application
no. 35208/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 July
2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Parnov v. Moldova,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 June 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 35208/06) against the Republic
of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Moldovan national, Mr Vladimir Parnov (“the
applicant”), on 8 August 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr D. Toma, a lawyer practising in
Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to
severe police brutality and that the authorities had failed to carry
out an adequate investigation into the incident, in breach of Article
3. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention.
- The
application was allocated to the Fourth Section. On 13 July 2009 the
President of that Section decided to communicate the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application
at the same time as its admissibility.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed written observations (Rule 59
§ 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant, Mr Vladimir Parnov, is a Moldovan national who was born in
1986 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events he
worked as a security guard in a café in Chişinău.
- According
to the applicant, on 22 March 2005, he was approached by four
individuals while walking along a street. They offered him a package,
the content of which was unknown. At that moment two plain-clothed
persons shouted: “Police, don't move”. All the persons
started to run, including the applicant. According to the applicant,
he was not convinced that the person running after him was a police
officer. After being chased for approximately seven hundred metres,
the applicant stumbled not far from his house and was arrested by the
chasing police officer. The applicant was wrestled to the ground and
a pistol with tear gas, which he possessed by virtue of his job, was
removed from its holster. The police officer beat him up and then
called other police officers to the scene. Later, several passers-by
and the applicant's brother-in-law approached the scene, stopped the
police officer from beating the applicant and forced him to let the
applicant go. The applicant and his brother-in-law were handcuffed
and taken to the police station. The former was arrested on charges
of aiding the latter to resist arrest.
- The
applicant submitted that he was ill-treated in the car on the way to
the police station and at the police station by several police
officers. In particular, he was punched and kicked all over and hit
on his head and other parts of his body with a plastic bottle full of
water. His head was banged against walls, the floor and furniture.
- According
to the Government, during the chase the applicant shot at the chasing
police officer from his pistol and then resisted arrest. The
Government contested the applicant's allegations about any
ill-treatment after the arrest and submitted that all of his injuries
were a result of his resisting arrest.
- On 23 March 2005 the applicant was taken to a court
and charged with the administrative offence of resisting arrest. He
confessed during proceedings to having fired at the police officer
from his tear-gas pistol. On the same date he was found guilty of
firing from a tear-gas pistol at a police officer during the chase
and sentenced to five days' imprisonment. The next day the Chişinău
Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's appeal and changed the
sentence to a fine of 180 Moldovan lei (MDL).
- On 23 March 2005 the police officer who had arrested
the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant
complaining that he had shot at him with a tear-gas pistol. On the
same date he underwent a forensic examination which showed that he
had scratches and bruises on his knees, the palms of his hands and
elbows. The injuries were qualified as “light injuries”
needing between six and twenty-one days of medical care. The criminal
complaint was finally dismissed on 20 May 2005 on the grounds that
the applicant had already been convicted for the same offence in the
administrative proceedings which ended with the judgment of the
Chişinău Court of Appeal of 23 March 2005.
- On
23 March 2005 the applicant was visited in custody by a prosecutor.
He complained that he had suffered ill-treatment by the police
officers and the prosecutor ordered a forensic examination of the
applicant's injuries. That examination was carried out on 31 March
2005. In the meantime the applicant was released from custody on 24
March 2005 and was seen by doctors who diagnosed him with a fractured
cranial bone, first-degree concussion, post-traumatic acute otitis
media of the right ear with perforation, and contusion of the soft
tissue of the head and face. On 30 March 2005 the applicant
underwent surgery in order to repair the torn tympanic membrane
(eardrum).
- On
31 March 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who
found that he had suffered a perforation of the right eardrum and a
first-degree head injury. The doctor concluded that the injuries had
been caused by contact with a blunt object of a limited surface area,
possibly in the circumstances described by the applicant, and that
they qualified as “light injuries” which needed between
six and twenty-one days of medical care.
- On
19 May 2005 the Rascani Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's
complaint of ill-treatment. The grounds for dismissing the complaint
were the statements of the accused police officers, according to
which the applicant had resisted arrest and shot at one of them from
a tear-gas pistol. According to the police officers they were obliged
to apply force in order to arrest and restrain the applicant and all
of his injuries were a result of that. The applicant submitted that
he had been ill-treated at the moment of the arrest, in the car and
at the police station. He also denied that he had fought the police
officers and fired at them from his gun. He submitted that his
confession that he had fired at a police officer in the
administrative proceedings had been made under duress. The
Prosecutor's Office heard testimonies from several witnesses who had
seen the applicant being restrained on the ground by a police officer
and later being released after several persons had intervened. Some
witnesses said that they had heard a gun shot. Only one of them
stated that they had seen the applicant shooting at the police
officer. Nobody had seen the applicant fighting the arresting police
officer.
- The
applicant challenged the above decision before an investigating
judge. He contested the findings of the Prosecutor's Office and
reiterated his complaints about the ill-treatment at the hands of the
police. However, on 18 April 2006, following a public hearing,
an investigating judge from the Râşcani District Court
dismissed the applicant's appeal as ill-founded.
- On 8 February 2007 the Râşcani District
Court acquitted the applicant in the main criminal proceedings
against him concerning the possession and sale of marijuana. The
court dismissed, inter alia, the accusations concerning the
applicant's shooting at the arresting police officer with a pistol on
the grounds of inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses
concerning that event. It also considered that there was no evidence
that the package of marijuana had belonged to the applicant and that
he had intended to sell it.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
Police Act of 18 December 1990 states:
“Section 14. Conditions and limits of the
use of force, special techniques and firearms
Police officers have the right to use force, special
techniques and firearms in the cases and in the manner provided for
in the present law. The use of force, special techniques and firearms
shall be preceded by a warning of the intention to use them and
sufficient time shall be allowed for reaction, except in cases in
which a delayed use of force... may directly threaten the life and
health of citizens or police officers or have serious consequences.
...
In any case, when the use of force cannot be avoided,
police officers are obliged to do their utmost to cause the least
harm possible to the health, honour, dignity and possessions of
citizens, as well as to ensure that medical assistance is provided to
victims.
In case of injury or death caused as a result of use of
force... the police officer shall inform his direct superior
accordingly, in order that the latter may inform a prosecutor.
An abuse of the power to use force... shall be punished
in accordance with the law.
Section 15. The use of physical force
Police officers are entitled to use force and special
fighting techniques for the purpose of ending criminal activities and
for neutralising resistance to legal demands, only in cases in which
non-violent methods are not sufficient to discharge their
obligations.”
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had
been ill-treated by the police during his arrest and detention at the
police station. He also complained of the failure of the domestic
authorities to investigate properly his allegations of ill-treatment.
Article 3 of the Convention reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- The
applicant argued that he had not had effective remedies to claim
compensation for the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected and
alleged a violation of Article 13, which provides:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority ....”
I. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINTS
- The
Court considers that the applicant's complaints under Articles 3
and 13 of the Convention raise questions of fact and law which are
sufficiently serious that their determination should depend on an
examination of the merits, and no other grounds for declaring them
inadmissible have been established. The Court therefore declares
these complaints admissible. In accordance with its decision to apply
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention (see paragraph 4
above), the Court will immediately consider the merits of these
complaints.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The submissions of the parties
1. Concerning the alleged ill-treatment
- The
applicant argued that he had not been taken for a medical check upon
his arrival at the police station and had been ill-treated by two
police officers. He disputed the Government's allegation that all the
injuries on his body had been sustained during his arrest. However,
he submitted that even assuming that that had been the case, the
force applied by the police had been excessive. Moreover, the police
officers had been wearing plain clothes, making it difficult to be
sure of their identities. The applicant also disputed the
Government's allegations that he had fired a shot from his pistol in
the direction of the police officer chasing him. He submitted that
the police officer had fired the gun after he had taken it away from
him. The applicant finally disputed the Government's submission
concerning his martial arts skills and submitted, inter alia,
that he had only practised judo for a short time as a child and had
not been awarded any grades.
- The
Government did not contest the fact that the injuries on the
applicant's body had been caused by the police. However, they
stressed that the arresting police officers' actions had been
justified in the circumstances because the applicant had used a
firearm and resisted arrest. In the Government's opinion, the gravity
of the situation had been proved by the injuries later found on the
body of one of the arresting police officers. The Government also
pointed out that the applicant was dangerous because he had practised
judo and that the use of force against him by one the arresting
police officers had been a last resort in order to neutralise and
arrest the applicant. Moreover, the injuries received by the
applicant were light injuries, exactly like those received by one of
the arresting police officers, which proved that the ill-treatment
had not reached such a level of severity as to trigger a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention. Finally, the Government submitted that
the applicant had been passive in pursuing his case before the
domestic authorities because he had challenged the prosecutor's
decision not to initiate criminal proceedings only after eight
months, despite having been immediately informed of it.
2. Concerning the alleged inadequacy of the
investigation
- The
applicant submitted that while a prosecutor had ordered a forensic
medical report on 23 March 2005, the State-run institute of forensic
medicine had not conducted one until 31 March 2005, thus leaving time
for the marks of violence to disappear. The applicant disputed the
Government's allegation that he had been passive in pursuing the case
and argued that he had learned about the decision of 19 May 2005 only
in December 2005. According to the applicant, the investigation
conducted by the State authorities into his allegations of
ill-treatment had been ineffective.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had failed to give details in
his appeal against the decision of 19 May 2005 about the shortcomings
of the investigation. Accordingly, in the absence of such detailed
reasons, the court had been entitled to dismiss the applicant's
appeal and to uphold the decision of the Prosecutor's Office.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Concerning the alleged ill-treatment
- As
the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 enshrines one of
the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most
difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and
organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture
and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most of the
substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4,
Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it
is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a
public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni
v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999 V,
and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 93,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).
- Where a person is injured while in detention or
otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give
rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to
ill-treatment (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98,
§ 80, 12 October 2004). It is incumbent on the State to provide
a plausible explanation of how the injuries were caused, failing
which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see
Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
- In
assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of
proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Ireland v. the
United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no.
25). However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of
sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar
unrebutted presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie
wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the
authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in
custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of
injuries occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof
may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a
satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey
[GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court reiterates that, in respect of a person deprived of liberty,
recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary
by the individual's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in
principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see
Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38,
Series A no. 336). Furthermore, the use of force in the context of an
arrest, even if it entails injury, may fall outside Article 3,
particularly in circumstances resulting from the applicant's own
conduct (see Berliński v. Poland, nos. 27715/95 and
30209/96, § 64, 20 June 2002). In this connection, the Court
notes that the timing of the injuries and the intensity of the
applicant's resistance to arrest is a matter of dispute between the
parties. According to the applicant, he only ran away and was
ill-treated during arrest, in the car and at the police station.
According to the Government, the applicant ran away, shot a police
officer with his tear-gas pistol and then fought the police officer
during arrest; all of the applicant's injuries were obtained in
fighting the police officer.
- The
Court notes in the first place that at no point in the domestic
proceedings was it clearly established that the applicant had fought
the arresting police officer while resisting arrest at the end of the
chase. In convicting the applicant for resisting arrest on 23 March
2005, the Râşcani District Court only found him guilty of
firing at the police officer from a tear-gas pistol (see paragraph 10
above). The applicant was not found guilty of fighting and/or
injuring the arresting police officer, despite the presence of
bruises and scratches on the palms, elbows and knees of that officer.
Moreover, in the domestic proceedings concerning the alleged
ill-treatment of the applicant, none of the witnesses was able to
confirm the police's version that the applicant had fought the
chasing police officer after being arrested. Later, in the criminal
proceedings against the applicant, in acquitting the applicant, the
Râşcani District Court expressed doubt even in respect of
the fact that it had been the applicant who had fired his pistol (see
paragraph 16 above). Accordingly, the Court considers that it
was not provided with sufficient evidence to conclude that the
intensity of the applicant's resistance was such as to warrant the
use of such force by the arresting police officer and to cause the
applicant injuries going beyond those unavoidable in the process of
his arrest and wrestling to the ground. The Court is particularly
concerned by the nature of one of the injuries on the applicant's
body, namely the perforated eardrum. The Court cannot fail to observe
that a similar injury was found to be characteristic of ill-treatment
in the majority of cases against Moldova in which a breach of
Article 3 was found and that in all those cases the injury
appeared to be consistent with allegations that the applicants had
been slapped on the ears (see Corsacov v. Moldova, no.
18944/02, § 61, 4 April 2006; Pruneanu v. Moldova,
no. 6888/03, § 53, 16 January 2007; Colibaba v. Moldova,
no. 29089/06, § 18, 23 October 2007; Breabin
v. Moldova, no. 12544/08, §
11, 7 April 2009; and Gurgurov v. Moldova,
no. 7045/08, §§ 23 and 41, 16 June 2009).
It is regrettable that the domestic authorities did not attempt to
give an explanation as to the cause of that injury on the applicant's
body and as to whether such an injury was compatible with any
techniques used by the Moldovan police in arresting and restraining
recalcitrant individuals.
- In
the light of the above, the Court is not convinced that all of the
injuries on the applicant's body were sustained during his arrest and
were due to the intensity of his resistance. Nonetheless, even
assuming that that was the case, the Court notes that upon his
arrival at the police station the applicant was not taken for a
medical examination before being taken into custody. Such an
examination would have been appropriate, particularly bearing in mind
that the applicant had allegedly been in a fight with a police
officer. This would not only ensure that the person is fit to be
questioned in police custody but would also enable the respondent
Government to discharge their burden of providing a plausible
explanation for those injuries. In this connection, the
Court notes that a medical examination, together with the right of
access to a lawyer and the right to inform a third party of the
detention, constitute fundamental safeguards against the
ill-treatment of detained persons which should apply from the very
outset of deprivation of liberty (see the 2nd General Report of the
European Committee for Prevention of Torture, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 -
Rev. 2006, § 36) (see Türkan v. Turkey, no.
33086/04, § 42, 18 September 2008).
- In
those circumstances, and given the burden on the State to provide a
plausible explanation for injuries sustained by a person in custody,
the Court concludes that the Government have not satisfactorily
established that the applicant's injuries were wholly caused
otherwise than by ill-treatment while in police custody. Accordingly,
there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in
that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
2. Concerning the alleged inadequacy of the
investigation
- The
Court reiterates that where an individual makes a credible assertion
that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of
the police or other agents of the State, that provision, read in
conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the
Convention to “secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the
rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention”, requires
by implication that there should be an effective official
investigation. As with an investigation under Article 2, such an
investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and
punishment of those responsible. Otherwise, the general legal
prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and
punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective
in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the
State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual
impunity (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy
[GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
- The
investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be
thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious
attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or
ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis
of their decisions (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria,
judgment cited above, §§ 103 et seq.). They must take
all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence
concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness
testimony and forensic evidence (see Tanrıkulu v.
Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq.,
ECHR 1999-IV, and Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93,
§ 89, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation
which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or
the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of
this standard.
- The
Court notes a series of serious shortcomings in the investigation
conducted by the national authorities. In the first place, in spite
of the allegations made by the authorities that the applicant had
been injured before he was placed in detention, no medical assistance
was provided to him upon arrival at the police station. On 23 March
2005 a prosecutor ordered a forensic medical examination which was
not carried out until 31 March 2005, that is, more than one week
after the alleged acts of ill-treatment. The authorities did not
provide any explanation for this lapse of time, during which some of
the marks of violence on the applicant's body could have disappeared.
In contrast, the Court notes that one of the police officers was able
to undergo a forensic examination immediately after requesting one
(see paragraph 11 above). Moreover, the authorities appear to have
accepted without reservation the version of the facts presented by
the arresting police officers. They did not check whether it was
theoretically possible for the arresting police officer to continue
the chase and arrest the applicant after being shot at by a tear-gas
pistol. They also too readily accepted the police's allegations that
the applicant had fought the chasing police officer after being
arrested, despite the lack of testimonies to such effect from any of
the witnesses questioned. No questions were raised in respect of the
nature of the applicant's injury to his ear and no answers were given
as to whether it was possible for the applicant to obtain such an
injury by other means other than deliberate infliction.
- In
the light of the serious deficiencies referred to above, the Court
considers that the domestic authorities did not fulfil their
obligation to investigate the applicant's complaints of
ill-treatment. Accordingly, there has also been a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant contended that as a result of the ineffectiveness of the
criminal investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment he had
not had any effective remedies by which to claim compensation for the
ill-treatment to which he had been subjected.
- The
Government disagreed and submitted that it had been open to the
applicant to institute civil proceedings and claim compensation.
- The
Court considers that given the inadequacy of the investigation into
the applicant's criminal complaint against the police officers who
had ill-treated him, a civil claim based on the same facts and
allegations would not have had any prospects of success (see, among
other authorities, Corsacov, cited above, §§ 81 and
82; Pruneanu, cited above, § 70; Breabin, cited
above, § 59; and Gurgurov, cited above, § 73).
Accordingly, the Court considers that it has not been shown that
effective remedies existed which would have enabled the applicant to
claim compensation for the ill-treatment suffered at the hands of the
police. There has therefore been a violation of Article 13 taken in
conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed 87 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage, the amount representing his expenses for the treatment of his
injuries suffered on 22 March 2005. He submitted copies of receipts
concerning the above amount. He also argued that the real amount had
been much higher, but that he did not have receipts to prove it.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant was not entitled to any
compensation because he had not been ill-treated.
- The
Court considers that there is a causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore awards the
entire amount claimed in respect of pecuniary damage.
B. Non-pecuniary damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
arguing that as a result of ill-treatment he still experienced
hearing problems in his right ear. He had had headaches and insomnia
for a long period of time and was still afraid of police officers. He
had lost confidence in the State authorities and had problems in his
personal life. It had taken a long time for his health and his social
life to recover.
- The
Government disagreed and argued that the amount claimed was excessive
in the light of the Court's case-law in similar cases.
- Having
regard to the violations found above and their gravity, the Court
considers that an award for non-pecuniary damage is justified in this
case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis the Court awards
him EUR 9,000.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,550 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court and submitted detailed information
concerning the expenditure.
- The
Government contested this amount and argued that it was excessive and
unfounded.
- The
Court awards EUR 800 for costs and expenses.
D. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention on the grounds of the treatment inflicted on the
applicant;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention in respect of the failure to conduct an effective
investigation into the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment by the
police;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective remedies in
respect of the ill-treatment complained of;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 87 (eighty-seven
euros) in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 9,000 (nine thousand
euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 (eight hundred
euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the
national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
