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
DECISION
Application no.
23003/05
by Aurel PĂDUREŢ
against
Moldova
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 January
2012 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 above application lodged on 13 February 2002,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly
settlement of the case,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
- The
applicant, Mr Aurel Pădureţ,
is a Moldovan national who was born in 1979 and
lives in Bozieni. He was represented before the Court by Mr A.
Briceac, a lawyer practising in Chişinău. The
Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Apostol, acting on behalf of their Agent.
The circumstances of the case
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
1. Background of the case and the applicant’s
arrest
- On
31 March 2000 the applicant was ill-treated by two police academy
students, A.R. and A.P., in office no. 508 of the Central police
station (see details in Pădureţ v. Moldova, no.
33134/03, 5 January 2010).
- In
the course of the criminal proceedings against A.R. and A.P., on
26 September 2001 the court held a hearing. After the hearing
the applicant was asked by an officer to follow him to the Central
police station.
- At
the police station the applicant and his representative spent
approximately an hour in office no. 507, which was near office no.
508, in which the applicant had been ill-treated on 31 March 2000.
- At
3.55 p.m. the applicant was asked to come to office no. 402 for an
interview; his representative was not allowed to participate. Thirty
minutes later the applicant told his representative that he had been
interviewed as a witness in a case concerning robbery and had signed
a witness statement.
- At
4.45 p.m. a lawyer was hired by the Moldovan Helsinki Committee to
represent the applicant. The applicant was being read his rights as
an accused in the same case in which he had just made a witness
statement.
- In
the course of the interview in office no. 402, A.R. and A.P.
repeatedly entered that office. The applicant’s interview ended
at 9.20 p.m. The investigator decided to detain the applicant
for 72 hours.
- On
27 September 2001 CHDOM drafted a report concerning the events of the
previous day, noting in particular potential conflicts of interest of
three police officers involved and the presence of A.R. and A.P.
- On
29 September 2001 a prosecutor asked a court to order the applicant’s
detention pending trial. The court rejected the request.
- The
applicant appealed and noted that the court had failed to deal with
his complaint that his detention had been unlawful. Only after he had
made statements as a witness had he been informed that he was in fact
a suspect. He had therefore unknowingly made statements which could
be used against him. He claimed that the real reason for his arrest
had been to remind him of the terror which he had had to endure in
that police station and to persuade him not to continue with the case
against A.R. and A.P.
- On
29 October 2001 the applicant underwent a medical check-up at the
Memoria Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental
organisation financed by the European Union and a member of the
General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for
Torture Victims (IRCT). A psychological examination forming part of
the check-up resulted in a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress;
post-traumatic organic cerebral syndrome; somatoform vegetative
dysfunction and Da Costa’s syndrome. The applicant was
depressed, haunted by the memories of his ill-treatment by the
police. He was afraid that he could be rearrested in the absence of
any witnesses and simply disappear; he therefore avoided being alone
and going out unaccompanied. He expressed strong feelings of fear
when he heard unexpected noises or simply saw a person in police
uniform.
- On
30 October 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the
decision of 29 September 2001. That decision was final.
- On
7 November 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office informed the
applicant’s lawyer that it had found no evidence that the
applicant had committed a crime. The investigation was therefore
discontinued.
- In
a letter of 14 December 2001 the Ministry of Internal Affairs
informed the applicant that the Centru police station had been
directed to pay attention to continuous improvement in police
officers’ professionalism.
2. Court proceedings initiated by the applicant
- On
25 October 2002 the applicant lodged a civil court action, seeking
compensation for the damage caused to him as a result of his illegal
arrest and detention. In his claim, he repeated most of the facts
mentioned above and relied on Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
- On
3 March 2003 the Centru District Court found in the applicant’s
favour and awarded him 20,050 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately
1,300 euros (EUR) at the time). The court found that the
applicant “was detained for only three days and did not suffer
any serious consequences”.
- On
4 June 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court partly quashed the
lower court’s judgment and reduced the award of damages to
MDL 5,050 (EUR 300). The applicant appealed.
- On
15 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice informed him that he had
failed to pay court fees. The applicant’s representative argued
that the law provided for an exemption from the payment of court fees
for actions concerning compensation for damage caused by unlawful
prosecution. On 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice left
the applicant’s appeal unexamined because of his failure to pay
the court fees.
COMPLAINTS
- The
applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his
arrest and detention had made him relive his traumatic experiences of
a year earlier, when he had been ill-treated in the same police
station.
- He
also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he
had been arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of having
committed a crime. Moreover, he had been detained for two hours
without any legal basis, before his status had been changed from
witness to suspect.
- He
further complained under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention that he
had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest and had
been compelled to testify against himself before being declared a
suspect.
- The
applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 that his detention had
not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
- He
also complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that the
domestic courts had not awarded him sufficient compensation.
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention of a violation of his right of access to court as a result
of the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to examine his
cassation appeal.
- He
finally complained under Article 8 of the Convention that he had
suffered psychological trauma as a result of reliving the experiences
of his ill-treatment in the police station.
THE LAW
27. On
18 July 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the
Government:
“I, Lilian Apostol, on behalf of the
Agent for the Government of Republic of Moldova, declare that the
Government of Moldova acknowledge a violation of the rights of Mr
Aurel Pădureţ protected under Article 3, Article 5 §§
1 and 2 and Article 6 of the Convention and offer to pay him the
sum of 16,000 (sixteen thousand) euros with a view to securing a
friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the
European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be
converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of
payment, and [shall be] 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.”
28. The
Court also received the following declaration signed by the
applicant’s representative:
“I, Andrei Briceag, the applicant’s
representative in the above case, note that the Government of Moldova
are prepared to acknowledge a violation of the rights of Mr Aurel
Pădureţ protected under Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1
and 2 and Article 6 of the Convention and to pay him the sum of
16,000 (sixteen thousand) euros, plus any tax that may be chargeable,
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 will be payable within three
months from the date of notification of the decision 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.
Having consulted my client, I would inform
you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims
against Moldova in respect of the facts giving rise to this
application. He declares 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
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.
Santiago Quesada Josep
Casadevall
Registrar President
