Case of Gumeniuc v. The Republic of Moldova
Case of Gumeniuc v. The Republic of Moldova
Case of Gumeniuc v. The Republic of Moldova
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 May 2017
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
GUMENIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 1
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 48829/06) against the
Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(the Convention) by a Moldovan national, Mr Andrei Gumeniuc (the
applicant), on 27 October 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr O.L. Dovbysh, a lawyer
practising in Vinnytsya, Ukraine. The Moldovan Government (the
Government) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to
detention in breach of the provisions of Article 5 1 of the Convention.
4. On 19 November 2014 the complaint concerning Article 5 1 was
communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was
declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS
not be revoked upon payment of the fine. It could only be revoked by the
hierarchically superior court if an appeal against it was successful.
THE LAW
A. Admissibility
16. The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes
that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.
B. Merits
17. The applicant argued that his detention had been contrary to
Article 5 1 of the Convention because he had not been informed about the
hearing of 26 May 2006, and he had been unable to prepare for it and have a
lawyer to represent him.
4 GUMENIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA JUDGMENT
18. The Government submitted that the applicants detention fell within
the scope of the exception to the rule of personal liberty listed in
sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 1 of the Convention and not within the
scope of sub-paragraph (b) of that Article. They argued that the measure of
detention in this case had been punitive in nature and had not been intended
to secure the payment of the fine by the applicant.
19. The Government further submitted that the materials of the domestic
case file were no longer available, because they had been destroyed after a
period of three to five years. Nevertheless, they expressed the conviction
that the applicant had been summoned to appear before the Ocnita District
Court for the hearing of 26 May 2006.
20. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with
Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the
physical security of the individual. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or
unjustified deprivations of liberty (see, for example, Lukanov v. Bulgaria,
20 March 1997, 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II;
Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, 171, ECHR 2004-II; and
Ilacu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, 461,
ECHR 2004-VII).
21. While the first sentence of Article 5 1 of the Convention contains a
general declaration of the right to liberty and security of person, the second
sentence sets out an exhaustive list of six exceptions to the right to liberty,
namely six ways in which detention may legitimately be imposed. Those
exceptions are set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) and no deprivation of
liberty can be compatible with Article 5 1 unless it falls within the scope
of any of those exceptions.
22. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that it is
undisputed between the parties that the applicant was deprived of his liberty
for approximately nine hours on 12 June 2006. The Court must therefore
determine next whether the applicants deprivation of liberty on that date
fell under any of the six exceptions allowed by Article 5 1 of the
Convention.
23. The Court notes from the outset the Governments submission to the
effect that the applicants detention fell under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5
1 of the Convention. It also accepts the Governments submission that the
decision of the Ocnita District Court of 26 May 2006 constituted a
conviction for the purposes of the same sub-paragraph. At the same time,
the Court notes that the proceedings as a result of which the applicant was
placed in detention were not directly related to the proceedings concerning
his breach of the traffic code but were new and entirely separate
proceedings. In other words, the detention imposed on him by the Ocnita
District Court on 26 May 2006 was not for speeding on a public road but for
failing to pay an administrative fine in bad faith, conduct reprimanded under
Article 26 (5) of the Code of Administrative Offences, a provision which is
GUMENIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 5
A. Damage
31. The applicant also claimed EUR 2,049 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court. The amount included the legal fees.
32. The Government submitted that the expenses claimed by the
applicant were neither necessary nor reasonable.
33. According to the Courts case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown
that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as
to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses for the proceedings before
it.
GUMENIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 7
C. Default interest
34. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate
should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank,
to which should be added three percentage points.
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted
into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;