[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Anatolie DONCIU v Moldova - 488/07 [2011] ECHR 1857 (11 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1857.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1857

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 488/07
Anatolie DONCIU
against Moldova

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2006,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Anatolie Donciu, is an Moldovan national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bacioi. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.

On 18 April 2006 the applicant was involved in a minor traffic accident in Chişinău. According to the police report, his car was involved in a collision after he had failed to yield priority to a car coming from his right at a junction without sign-posts. As a result, administrative proceedings were initiated against the applicant for violation of the traffic code.

A hearing took place before the Centru District Court on 16 June 2006 during which the applicant argued that there was a sign-post at the junction. It was clear from the sign-post that the other car involved in the accident had to yield priority. The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments and found him responsible for the accident. The court sentenced the applicant to pay an administrative fine of 300 Moldovan Lei.

The applicant appealed and submitted, inter alia, that he had not had the possibility to hear the representative of the Traffic Police who had investigated the accident.

On 10 July 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal held a hearing without the applicant’s participation and dismissed the appeal without any further reasoning.

After the communication of the present case to the Government, the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated review proceedings at the request of the Government Agent.

On 27 July 2010 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 July 2006 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not been summoned to the hearing.

The outcome of the re-opened proceedings is unknown to the Court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair because his appeal had been examined in his absence.

THE LAW

On 26 May 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“The Government acknowledge that, in the instant case, [...] there has been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Government consider that, on account of [the quashing of the judgment of 10 July 2006 and the re-opening of the proceedings], the effects of the violation have been redressed [...] in respect of the applicant’s rights to be present, to hear and to follow the proceedings before a court in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention [...]

The Government offer to pay the global sum of 1,500 euros to the applicant in compensation for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him, and also to cover any expenses before the Court. This sum 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. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case [...]”

On 5 September 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I agree with a friendly settlement of the case and [...] I accept the proposal of the Government of Republic of Moldova [...]”

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.

Marialena Tsirli Egbert Myjer
Deputy Registrar President