FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29837/09
by Radu POPA
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
and Lawrence EarlySection Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2009,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Radu Popa, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1982 and lives in Chişinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Zamă, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
On 5 April 2009 general elections took place and the Communist Party, which had a majority of votes in the outgoing Parliament, won 60 seats out of a total of 101.
On 6 and 7 April 2009 a protest against alleged electoral fraud took place in the centre of Chişinău. The protest was initially peaceful. However, in the afternoon of 7 April 2009 some of the protesters became violent. Clashes with the police took place and the building of the Parliament and the Presidential Palace were damaged by stone throwing. A large number of police officers and protesters were injured. At a certain moment the police forces, largely outnumbered by the protesters, abandoned the two buildings, allowing several hundred persons to enter. Those persons destroyed and pillaged the buildings, setting parts of the Parliament alight. Two persons assisted by police officers placed the flags of the European Union on the top of the buildings of the Parliament and Presidency next to the Moldovan flags. Unknown persons placed the flag of Romania on the roof of one of the buildings. On the same night some 200 persons were arrested on charges of large-scale disorder. The opposition was accused of an attempted coup d'état.
On 23 April 2009 the applicant was arrested on charges of participating in the mass disorder of 7 April 2009.
On 24 April 2009 an investigating judge from the Centru District Court ordered his detention for ten days. The judge found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence imputed to him and that he could abscond if not placed in detention. No details as to the grounds for suspicion were given.
The applicant challenged the detention order before the Chişinău Court of Appeal and argued, inter alia, that his detention had been groundless as there was no evidence that he had committed the imputed offence. Alternatively, he submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond if released pending trial.
On 30 April 2009 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that there had been a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence imputed to him without clarifying what the suspicion was based on.
On 2 May 2009 the Centru District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of thirty days on the same grounds as those in the initial detention warrant. The applicant appealed arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and that no evidence in support of the accusation had been presented by the prosecution. He argued that in any event there were no reasons justifying his detention.
On 7 May 2009 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal without relying on any new reasons.
On 12 May 2009 the Centru District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of thirty days on the same grounds as those in the initial detention warrant.
According to the applicant during his detention he was forced to confess and threatened with ill-treatment. He complained on several occasions to the Prosecutor's Office about undue pressure put on him by the criminal investigators in charge of his case with a view to obtaining confessions incriminating his fiancé's employer.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there had been no reasonable suspicion to justify his arrest and detention.
2. He also complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons in favour of his detention.
3. He further complained under Article 18 of the Convention that his detention had had a purpose other than that provided for in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
4. Finally, the applicant complained about a violation of his right to be presumed innocent.
THE LAW
On 28 June 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Vladimir Grosu, Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the Government of Moldova accepts that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the present case and offer to pay the sum of 6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to Mr Radu POPA with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 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.”
On 4 June 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant's representative:
“I, Vitalie Zama, the applicant's representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova accept that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the present case and are prepared to pay the sum of 6,000 (six thousand euros) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to Mr Radu POPA with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment. It 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 amount 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.”
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 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.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza	
		President