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!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
European Court of Human Rights |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BAROUL PARTNER-A v. MOLDOVA - 39815/07 [2010] ECHR 1553 (19 October 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1553.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1553 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BAROUL PARTNER-A v. MOLDOVA
(Application no. 39815/07)
JUDGMENT
(just satisfaction – friendly settlement)
STRASBOURG
19 October 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
“I, Alexandru Gritunic, the owner of the applicant company, note that the Government of Moldova are prepared to pay the applicant company 320,000 (three hundred and twenty thousand) euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred by the applicant with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government also offer to pay the applicant company 8,000 (eight thousand) euros to cover the representation fees.
These sums will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sums in euros will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. The sums 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. 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
“I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova offer to pay the applicant company 320,000 (three hundred and twenty thousand) euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred by it with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government also offer to pay the applicant company 8,000 (eight thousand) euros to cover the representation fees.
These sums will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. The sums will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. The sums 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 the sums 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.”
THE LAW
Having regard to its terms, the Court finds the agreement equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules of Court and that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Consequently, it takes formal note of the agreement and considers it appropriate to strike the remainder of the case out of the list pursuant to that provision.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President