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
1.  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
2.  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
3.  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).
4.  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.
5.  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.
6.  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.
7.  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.
8.  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.
9.  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.
10.  On 29 September 2001 a prosecutor asked a court to order the applicant’s detention pending trial. The court rejected the request.
11.  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.
12.  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.
13.  On 30 October 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the decision of 29 September 2001. That decision was final.
14.  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.
15.  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
16.  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.
17.  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”.
18.  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.
19.  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
20.  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.
21.  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.
22.  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.
23.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 that his detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.
24.  He also complained under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that the domestic courts had not awarded him sufficient compensation.
25.  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.
26.  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