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 >> Elena MUNTEANU v Moldova - 24092/07 [2010] ECHR 1953 (2 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1953.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1953 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
24092/07
by Elena MUNTEANU
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Lech
Garlicki,
President,
Ján
Šikuta,
Vincent
Anthony de Gaetano,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 May 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Elena Munteanu, a Moldovan national who was born in 1981 and lives in Chişinău. She was represented before the Court by Mr Gh. Ionaş, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 October 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of trafficking of human beings for the purposes of prostitution.
On 5 October 2006 the Centru District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for 30 days from the date of arrest. The court found that:
“... [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence, which is punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, has no stable residence in Chişinău and lives together with the victim; if released she could abscond, interfere with the investigation and therefore her isolation from society is at the moment absolutely necessary.”
On 9 November 2006 the prosecutor asked for an extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial. On the same day, the Centru District Court accepted the request and extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for three months. The court noted that the previous detention order had expired on 2 November 2006. It therefore decided that the three months’ detention pending trial should start from that date. The court did not refer to any new reasons for extending the applicant’s detention pending trial.
The applicant appealed and noted, inter alia, that the previous detention order had expired on 2 November 2006, meaning that her detention after that date had been without any lawful basis. The Centru District Court did not have the power to retroactively provide a legal basis for that unlawful detention in its decision of 9 November 2006. Moreover, the Constitution and the law provided that court orders for detention pending trial should not exceed one month, while the court had ordered her detention for three months.
On 20 November 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 9 November 2006, finding that the lower court had complied with the legal requirements.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
On 7 June 2010 the Court received a friendly settlement declaration signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for costs and expenses, which would be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. These amounts 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 undertook 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 Court 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 examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
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 cases.
Fatoş Aracı Lech Garlicki
Deputy Registrar President
