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]
THIRD
SECTION
CASE OF
SOCHICHIU v. MOLDOVA
(Application
no. 28698/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
May 2012
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 Sochichiu v. Moldova,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 April 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 28698/09) 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 Sergiu Sochichiu (“the
applicant”), on 27 May 2009.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr G. Malic and Mr I. Oancea,
lawyers 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 ill treated during
his arrest contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
- On
29 November 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant, Mr Sergiu Sochichiu, was born in 1973 and lives in
Chişinău. At the time of the events he was a real estate
agent.
- On
17 January 2007 the applicant was arrested by four plainclothes
police officers in front of his daughter’s kindergarten.
According to the applicant, he was sitting in his car when four armed
people approached him. When he got out of the car he received a blow
to his head and fell down, injuring his face. His hands were then
tied with his belt and he was taken to a police station in a police
car.
- According
to the Government, the applicant attempted to lock the doors of his
car and to flee when approached by the police officers. When taken
out of the car, he engaged in a fight with one of them. The
Government submitted that the arresting officers had had no other
option but to apply force in order to immobilise him.
- The
Government submitted a video showing a part of the applicant’s
arrest. The video starts with images from a moving car approaching
two other cars. Near those cars, the applicant can be seen lying with
his face on the ground surrounded by several men in plain clothes.
One of the men is pressing his foot on the applicant’s head.
The applicant does not move and his hands are placed on the ground.
He is asked his name and he answers. One of the men asks another man
whether he has handcuffs and receives a negative answer. Then he
starts taking the applicant’s belt off. The applicant
cooperates and raises his midsection from the ground in order to
allow the police officer to take off his belt. Then, the man with his
foot on the applicant’s head brushes off his lower trouser leg
with his hand, without removing his foot from the applicant’s
head. Then that man takes his foot off the applicant’s head and
another man orders the applicant to put his hands behind his back.
The applicant complies and one of the men starts tying his hands with
his belt. At that point, one of the men bends down to speak to the
applicant and asks what happened and the applicant answers that his
teeth have been knocked out. That man then tells the others that two
of the applicant’s teeth are missing. One of the men says with
a sarcastic tone: “they will grow back, won’t they?”
The applicant says that they will not. Then the applicant is lifted
from the ground and taken to a white car. On his way, one of the
arresting men shouts a swear word at the applicant. The applicant
gets into the car, after which the video stops. The video lasts
almost two minutes.
- One
of the arresting officers drove the applicant’s car to the
police station. The applicant’s wife and daughter witnessed his
arrest. According to the applicant, his arrest was also witnessed by
many other parents who were taking their children home from
kindergarten. This submission was disputed by the arresting officers
during the criminal proceedings against them.
- At
the police station the applicant was informed that he was suspected
of fraud connected with the sale of an apartment belonging to a third
party. After two hours, the applicant’s lawyer was called and
then an ambulance. The doctors found injuries on the applicant’s
face, in particular on his lips and jaw and concluded that he needed
inpatient examination and treatment. It appears that on the same day
the applicant’s lip was stitched. The applicant’s car was
returned to his family the next day.
- On
the same day as the applicant’s arrest the arresting officers
drafted a record of his arrest, which stated that the applicant had
been arrested on suspicion of fraud. The record did not contain any
information concerning resistance by the applicant to arrest.
- On
19 January 2007 the applicant was taken before an investigating
judge, to whom he complained of being ill-treated at the time of his
arrest. The investigating judge forwarded his complaint to the
Prosecutor’s Office and ordered the applicant’s forensic
medical examination.
- In
a report dated 20 January 2007 and bearing number 348, a forensic
doctor observed that the applicant had presented with a bruise on his
lower lip and bruises and scratches on his jaw and upper limbs.
According to the doctor, the injuries had been caused by a blunt
object and needed between six and twenty-one days of medical
treatment.
- The
criminal case file also contains two forensic reports, one dated 19
January 2007 and bearing number 350 and another one dated 22 January
2007 and bearing number 369, according to which one of the arresting
officers had presented with a bruise on his left arm and scratches on
his hands. It does not, however, appear that the police officer in
question made any complaints against the applicant or that the
applicant was charged with the offence of resisting arrest.
- Also
on 20 January 2007 the Buiucani District Court rejected the
prosecutor’s request to remand the applicant in custody and
instead ordered the applicant’s house arrest for a period of
ten days.
- Between
February 2007 and April 2009 prosecutors from the Chişinău
Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings
against the police officers involved on three occasions. Their
decisions were quashed each time by court orders or by the Prosecutor
General’s Office. Each time, the prosecutors’ rationale
was that the police had applied force in order to counter the
applicant’s resistance and that the use of force had been
justified. In support of this conclusion, the prosecutors relied on
forensic report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007.
In
particular, on 16 February 2007 prosecutor G., who was the prosecutor
in charge of the criminal investigation against the applicant,
refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the officers. That
decision was quashed on 6 June 2007 by a deputy Prosecutor
General on account of the fact that prosecutor G. had not been
independent.
On 6
July 2007 prosecutor H. refused to initiate criminal proceedings. His
decision was quashed by the Prosecutor General’s Office on 28
March 2008 on account of the fact that the investigation had not yet
been completed.
On 15
July 2008 prosecutor P. refused to initiate criminal proceedings. His
decision was quashed by the Râşcani District Court on 21
April 2009 on account of the fact that prosecutor P. had failed,
inter alia, to examine the video of the applicant’s
arrest and to question the applicant’s wife and the other
people who had witnessed the applicant’s arrest.
- On
20 May 2009 prosecutor R. from the Chişinău Prosecutor’s
Office formally initiated criminal proceedings against the officers
involved, but they were discontinued on 14 December 2009. Prosecutor
R. based his decision to discontinue the proceedings on the same
grounds as the previous decisions not to institute proceedings. He
did not question the applicant’s wife, arguing that she had
refused to talk to him, and did not identify other possible
witnesses, arguing that due to the time elapsed since the date of the
arrest, it was impossible to identify such witnesses. The decision of
prosecutor R. was quashed by the Râşcani District Court on
21 June 2010, when the court ordered the reopening of the criminal
proceedings on the grounds that the Prosecutor’s Office had
failed to determine whether the force applied against the applicant
had been proportional to the intensity of his resistance and to
question the applicant’s wife, who had been present at the
arrest, and to examine the video of the arrest.
- On
30 December 2010 prosecutor R. questioned the applicant’s wife,
who stated that she had been coming out of the kindergarten with her
and her husband’s three-year-old daughter when they had
witnessed her husband’s arrest by four men armed with guns. She
stated that when the applicant had gotten out of the car, the men had
started beating him and had thrown him to the ground face down. Then
they had tied his hands and had taken him away in their car. One of
them had driven off with the applicant’s car. She also stated
that the event had been witnessed by many other parents who had been
taking their children home from kindergarten.
- On
the same date prosecutor R. again closed the criminal proceedings
concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment. In his decision, the
prosecutor did not give any consideration to the statement given by
the applicant’s wife. Relying on the statements of the accused
officers to the effect that the applicant had resisted arrest and on
forensic report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007, the prosecutor
concluded that the use of force by the arresting officers had been
justified. The prosecutor also explained the fact that the number
borne by the forensic report dated 19 January 2007 was higher than
the report dated 20 January 2007 as a technical error. The applicant
appealed against this decision.
- On
22 April 2011 the Râşcani District Court quashed the
decision of 30 December 2010 and ordered the reopening of the
criminal proceedings. The court found numerous flaws in the
investigation, among which were the disappearance of the original
video cassette on which the arrest of the applicant had been filmed
and the excessive length of the investigation.
- On
18 July 2011 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office again
closed the criminal proceedings on similar grounds as the previous
occasions. The applicant challenged this decision before the Râşcani
District Court. However, on 27 October 2011 the applicant’s
appeal was finally dismissed.
- As
to the criminal proceedings against the applicant, it appears from
the statements of the parties that he spent one hundred and fifty
days under house arrest and that no conviction has been delivered to
date.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
Police Act of 18 December 1990 states:
Section 14. Conditions of and limits on 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, of special
techniques and of firearms shall be preceded by a warning about the
intention to use them, and sufficient time shall be allowed for
reaction, except in cases in which a delayed use of force... may
generate a direct threat to the life and health of citizens or police
officers or may lead to serious consequences.
...
In any case in which the use of force cannot be avoided,
police officers are obliged to do their best in order to cause the
least harm possible to the health, [...] dignity and property of
citizens, as well as to ensure medical assistance is provided to
victims.
In case of injury or death caused as a result of use of
force... the police officer shall report it to his direct superior,
in order that the latter may inform a prosecutor.
The 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 only entitled to use force
and special fighting techniques for the purpose of ending criminal
activities and for neutralising resistance to legal demands in cases
in which non-violent methods are not sufficient for the discharging
of their obligations.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant submitted that he had been ill-treated by the police during
his arrest and that the State authorities had failed to effectively
investigate his allegations of ill-treatment. In his view, the above
had amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and to a
breach of the State’s obligation to provide effective remedies
in this respect. Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth
in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had failed to challenge the
decision of the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office of 18
July 2011 closing the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged
ill-treatment and that, therefore, his complaints had to be declared
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
- The
applicant disagreed with the Government and submitted copies of his
appeal against the decision of 18 July 2011 and a copy of the Râşcani
District Court’s decision of 27 October 2011.
- The
Court notes that the applicant did, in fact, challenge the
prosecutor’s decision of 18 July 2011. The Court therefore
concludes that the complaints cannot be declared inadmissible for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and, accordingly, the
Government’s objection is dismissed.
- The
Court further notes that these complaints are not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the
Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any
other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
- The
applicant submitted that the use of force against him had been
totally unwarranted. He had not been wanted by the police, had been
unarmed and had not been caught in the act of committing a criminal
offence. In fact, at the time of his arrest, the police officers had
acted ultra vires, as there had been no formal order for his
arrest. At the police station, he had been kept without medical
assistance for two hours before it had been provided and only at the
insistence of his lawyer. According to him, the treatment meted out
to him by the police had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
- The
applicant also submitted that the prosecutors in charge of the case
had not been independent. He mentioned that the first refusal to
initiate criminal proceedings had been adopted by prosecutor G., who
had also been in charge of the criminal case against him. That same
prosecutor had indicted the applicant and had applied to a court for
his remand in custody. It was only on 20 May 2009 that the Chişinău
Prosecutor’s Office had formally initiated criminal proceedings
against the officers involved.
- The
Government did not deny that the injuries on the applicant’s
body had been caused by police officers during his arrest. However,
they maintained that the use of force by the police officers had been
justified by the applicant’s behaviour, in particular by his
resistance to arrest, and that the intensity of the force used had
not been disproportional to the applicant’s resistance. They
relied on forensic medical report no. 350 dated 19 January 2007,
in which it had been noted that a bruise and scratches had been found
on the arms of one of the arresting officers. The Government
maintained that in any event the suffering caused to the applicant
had not reached the minimum threshold of severity required by Article
3 and asked the Court to dismiss the applicant’s complaint
under that Article. As to the effectiveness of the investigation, the
Government submitted that the prosecutors had done everything which
it had been necessary to do in order to investigate the applicant’s
allegations. Therefore, the investigation had been effective within
the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The Court’s assessment
- 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).
- The
Court reiterates that in the process of arrest of a person, any
recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary
by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in
principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the
Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria,
4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).
- The
Court further 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, the 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).
- For
an investigation to be effective, it may generally be regarded as
necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the
investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events
(see e.g. Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, no. 46430/99, §
66, 5 October 2004). This means not only a lack of hierarchical or
institutional connection but also practical independence (see, for
example, Ergı v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, §§ 83-84,
Reports 1998-IV, where the public prosecutor investigating the
death of a girl during an alleged clash showed a lack of independence
through his heavy reliance on the information provided by the
gendarmes implicated in the incident).
- 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, 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, ECHR 1999-IV, § 104 et
seq., 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.
- Turning
to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that it is
undisputed that the applicant was injured by police officers during
his arrest. The only matter in dispute is whether the use of force by
the police was justified in the circumstances of the case.
- It
appears from the facts of the case that the applicant was not
arrested in the course of a random operation which might have given
rise to unexpected developments to which the police might have been
called upon to react without prior preparation (see, a contrario,
Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, § 48, 24 May 2007).
The materials in the case file clearly show that the police planned
the arrest operation in advance and that they had sufficient time to
evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for
carrying out the arrest. In this respect, the Court has some
reservations as to the manner in which the operation was prepared for
the reason that the police officers were not even equipped with
handcuffs and had to tie the applicant’s hands with his own
belt.
- The
Court further notes that the operation was carried out by four police
officers, who, as appears from the video of the arrest, were of
approximately the same size and build as the applicant and, unlike
the applicant, were armed. The task of the four police officers was
to arrest a suspect who was not armed and was not known to have a
history of violence. On the contrary, the applicant had a family, a
job, a permanent place of residence, was not wanted by the police and
was suspected of a white-collar crime. Furthermore, the arrest was to
take place in front of a kindergarten at a time when the applicant
and other parents would ordinarily be taking their children home,
thus potentially in front of the applicant’s family and other
people, including small children. In such circumstances, the Court is
not persuaded by the findings of the domestic authorities to the
effect that the applicant represented such a serious threat to the
arresting officers as to justify such brutal methods on their part.
Even assuming that the applicant’s initial reaction to four
individuals in plain clothes wanting to arrest him was some form of
resistance, the Court remains persuaded that other less harmful
methods and techniques were available to a group of four trained
police officers.
- Besides
the brutal force used against the applicant, the Court notes from the
video of the arrest that the conduct of the police officers was far
from being respectful of the applicant’s dignity. In
particular, one of the police officers stepped on his head and did
not remove his foot, even when brushing his trousers. In the Court’s
opinion, such conduct is degrading and humiliating. The Court also
notes the mocking of the applicant’s losing some of his teeth
and the swearing by one of the officers.
- The
Court must also have regard to the manner in which the domestic
authorities examined the applicant’s complaint of
ill-treatment. It notes in the first place that the proceedings in
respect of the applicant’s complaint have been pending before
the domestic authorities for almost five years. Judging by the
materials in its possession, the Court is not persuaded that the
present case presents such complexity as to have required such a long
time to be resolved. The investigation’s long duration was
apparently due to the manner in which the criminal proceedings took
place, which, in the Court’s opinion, discloses a lack of means
by which the courts might exercise effective control over
investigating bodies. In the Court’s view, the Chişinău
Prosecutor’s Office did not feel compelled to fully implement
the instructions received from the district court and the court had
no other option but to quash the prosecutor’s decisions each
and every time. The Court recalls that similar situations were
encountered in numerous other cases against Moldova concerning
Article 3 of the Convention, such as, for instance, Corsacov v.
Moldova (no. 18944/02, 4 April 2006), Gurgurov v. Moldova
(no. 7045/08, 16 June 2009) and Mătăsaru
and Saviţchi v. Moldova (no. 38281/08,
2 November 2010), where, as in the present case, the case went back
and forth between the prosecutor’s office and the courts.
The Court is not prepared at this time to make a finding in respect
of the effectiveness of the system put in place by the Moldovan
authorities to react to allegations of ill-treatment. However, the
Court’s position may be subject to review in the future.
- The
Court further notes that the domestic authorities appear to have been
inclined to prefer the version of the facts given by the arresting
officers merely on account of forensic medical report no. 350, which
was presented to the authorities by one of the police officers. In
that report, it was established that the officer in question had
sustained a bruise and several scratches to his arms. The Court notes
with concern that, while dated 19 January 2007, that report bore
a higher registration number than the report issued to the applicant
by the same medical institution on 20 January 2007. Moreover, for
reasons best known to the medical institution in question, a similar
report was issued to the same arresting officer three days later,
this time bearing a normal registration number. It does not appear
that the domestic authorities showed much concern about this
important fact or that they made any genuine attempt to clarify the
matter.
-
The Court finally notes that the prosecuting authorities focused only
on the statements made by the applicant and by the accused officers.
However, as was stated by the applicant’s wife, numerous other
parents and children witnessed the applicant’s arrest. In
dismissing the applicant’s complaint, the prosecutors do not
appear to have paid attention to that statement and did not make any
attempt to identify the other individuals who had witnessed the
arrest.
- In
the light of the above, the Court concludes that there has been both
a substantive and a procedural violation of Article 3 of the
Convention. In so far as the substantive aspect is concerned, the
Court considers that the treatment to which the applicant was
subjected amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. It also holds
that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- In
his initial application, the applicant also complained that the
taking of his car by one of the police officers on the day of his
arrest had breached his rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 13 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
However, he did not substantiate these complaints in his subsequent
submissions to the Court. In such circumstances and in view of the
materials in its possession, the Court does not discern any signs of
a violation in respect of them. Accordingly, they must be declared
inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
III. 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 1,220 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage.
He maintained that he had had to spend this amount to fix his teeth
which had been knocked out by the police officers during his arrest.
He submitted a copy of an x-ray picture of his mouth with two frontal
teeth missing and a copy of an invoice from a dental clinic for
mounting of the two missing teeth.
- The
Government argued that the documents presented by the applicant did
not prove that he had actually spent the amount claimed. In any
event, they submitted that the cost of the dental services claimed by
the applicant was too high and that he could have found cheaper
offers on the market.
- The
Court notes that there is nothing in the relevant forensic medical
report about the applicant’s teeth being missing after his
arrest. However, it notes that one of the arresting officers admitted
in the video of the applicant’s arrest that two of his teeth
had been knocked out and that the Government does not dispute this
allegation. Therefore, it considers it justified to award the amount
claimed by the applicant in full.
B. Non-pecuniary Damage
- The
applicant claimed EUR 110,000 for non-pecuniary damage. He argued
that he had suffered severe physical pain and mental anguish of
particularly a severe intensity as a result of being ill-treated in
front of his wife and his three-year-old daughter.
- The
Government disagreed with the amount claimed by the applicant and
argued that it was excessive.
- 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 15,000.
C. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 5,557 for costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. The amount claimed covered postal expenses,
translation fees and representation fees. The applicant submitted
relevant documents in support of his claims.
- The
Government contested the amount claimed by the applicant and argued
that it was excessive.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to
reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession, the above criteria and the
complexity of the case, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.
D. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 complaint under Article 3 taken
alone and together with Article 13 of the Convention admissible and
the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a substantive and a
procedural violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
- Holds that no separate issue arises under
Article 13 of the Convention;
- 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, the following
amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at
the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
1,220 (one thousand two hundred and twenty euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 15 May 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall Registrar President
