Gheorghe IONEL v Moldova - 24032/08 [2011] ECHR 710 (29 March 2011)

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!

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 March 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 1 September 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Ionel, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1967 and lives in Vorniceni. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Ursachi and Ms A. Balan, lawyers practising in Chişinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.

At the time of the events the applicant was the mayor of Vorniceni village. On 12 October 2007 he was arrested on charges of trafficking in human beings. The applicant was placed in custody and detention warrants were issued by the domestic courts for a period of forty-six days, until 26 November 2007, when the applicant was released. The domestic courts dismissed, without giving any reasons, the applicant’s contention that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence imputed to him, that his arrest was politically motivated and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons to detain him in custody. The courts’ reasons for detaining the applicant were that the applicant had committed a serious offence punishable with more than two years of imprisonment, there was a risk of collusion with other unidentified suspects, the applicant could abscond or hinder the investigation and that he had a criminal record.

During his detention the applicant was held in solitary confinement in cell no. 4 of the DGCCO detention centre. The cell was measuring approximately 4 square metres, it did not have windows and the ceiling was so low that an adult person could not stand in it. There was no artificial illumination and the cell was completely dark. The applicant requested on numerous occasions that an electric bulb be installed in his cell but the administration refused. There was no bed but only a wooden shelf without any bedding. The cell was very cold and there was no toilet in it. The applicant was taken to the toilet only once a day. For the rest of the time he had to use a bucket. Due to the conditions of detention the applicant had serious health problems, however, he was not provided with appropriate medical care.

On 19 July 2009 the applicant was finally acquitted by the Supreme Court of Justice.

On 6 May 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. The text of their letter to the Court read as follows:

“The Government acknowledge that there has been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention because the conditions in the DGCCO detention centre, where the applicant had been held, amounted to degrading treatment. At the same time, there was an infringement of the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, because the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to detain the applicant and to prolong his detention were not sufficient...

In this sense, the Government consider that all the facts mentioned supra and particularly the acknowledgement of a violation of the applicant’s right could serve, at least as partial just satisfaction...

At the same time, the Government is ready to propose a certain amount of money as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage, as well as for costs and expenses, immediately after the applicant presents his observations upon the present declaration...”

In a letter received by the Court on 14 June 2010 one of the applicant’s representatives reiterated her position that in the present case there had been a breach of Article 3 and of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,700 for costs and expenses. She did not say anything in respect of the alleged breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

On 1 September 2010 the Government reiterated their initial unilateral declaration and proposed to pay the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. They noted that the applicant had not insisted on his initial complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant was requested on two occasions, including once by registered mail, to comment on the amounts proposed by the Government but he failed to do so.

The Court notes that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court to strike a case out of its list in particular if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court also notes that under certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Melnic v. Moldova, no. 6923/03, §§ 22-25, 14 November 2006).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005)).

In the light of all the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

In so far as the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 is concerned, the Court notes that the applicant failed to substantiate it and considers the complaint to be ill-founded. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Gheorghe IONEL v Moldova - 24032/08 [2011] ECHR 710 (29 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/710.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 710