I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in A.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-11-30
  • Communication date: 2014-04-02
  • Application number(s): 60450/13
  • Country:   MDA
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.754453
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

1.
The applicant, A.C., is a Moldovan national.
He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Lungu, a lawyer practising in Durleşti.
A.
The circumstances of the case 2.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3.
The applicant is on trial for armed robbery.
4.
Since 31 May 2012 the applicant has been detained in Prison No.
11 in Bălți.
5.
According to the applicant, he is HIV positive and has latent tuberculosis.
6.
From March to June 2012 he was detained in a cell measuring 11.25 sq.m with six other inmates.
From June 2012 to March 2013 he was detained in a different cell of the same size with five other inmates.
From August to October 2012 the same cell accommodated a total of eight inmates.
After March 2013 he was detained in two further cells with three other inmates.
7.
According to the applicant, the cells had damp on the walls and wet floors, leaking ceilings and no ventilation.
They were also infested with cockroaches and bedbugs.
Due to overcrowding, the applicant had to share a bed with another inmate with whom he took turns to sleep.
In summer the air indoors was hot, humid and smelly which made it difficult to breathe.
In cold weather the heating was not turned on and the temperature in the cells would become so low that the applicant could see his breath.
The squat toilet was separated by a one metre high wall and stood twenty centimetres away from the table where the applicant would normally eat.
8.
The applicant was detained with inmates diagnosed with open and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.
In hot weather the applicant would regularly feel weak and suffer nosebleeds, but his verbal requests for medical assistance were ignored.
In March 2013 he was offered medical assistance for a tooth infection, but not until fourteen days after he had requested it.
According to the applicant, he did not receive any treatment for the HIV opportunistic infections he would suffer from regularly.
He made no complaints concerning the medical treatment he received for his tuberculosis.
9.
The applicant submitted that he did not receive food of a sufficient quantity and quality, despite there being domestic regulations in force setting out the amount and type of food required for inmates in his state of health.
At times he would also be prohibited from receiving food from his relatives.
10.
During his detention the applicant did not receive any bedding or clothing.
11.
On hearing days the applicant was away from prison from 7.30 a.m. until 2 p.m., which meant that he left prison before breakfast and returned after the midday meal.
He was detained in a very small cell without ventilation or windows and was given no food throughout the day.
This happened on at least ten occasions.
12.
On 14 February 2013 the applicant explained to the Bălți prosecutor that on 5 and 6 February he had mutilated himself in order to protest against the detention conditions and lack of food.
13.
In a letter addressed to the administration of Prison no.
11 dated 19 February 2013, the Bălți prosecutor pointed out the applicant’s complaints regarding the inappropriate material conditions of detention with a request for remedial works to be carried out.
14.
According to the applicant, in May 2013 he submitted complaints to the Ministry of Justice and Prosecutor General’s Office, but did not receive a reply.
B.
Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Moldova in 2011 – CPT/Inf (2012) 3 15.
The relevant part of the report of the visit to Moldova carried out by the CPT from 1 to 10 June 2011 reads as follows (unofficial translation): “53.
...
Established in 1812, in the centre of Bălţi, Prison no.
11 is one of the oldest prisons in the country.
... 73.
Concerning the cell occupancy rate in the prisons visited, the delegation found that inmates were for the most part detained in completely unacceptable conditions of overcrowding.
The living space per inmate in cells, integrated toilets included, was generally less than 3.5 m2 and could be reduced to 1.5 m2 (for example 18 inmates in a cell of about 28 m2 in Bălţi and four inmates in a cell of about 11 m2, with six beds, in Rezina).
74.
The dilapidated condition of premises in these prisons is a serious challenge.
With a few exceptions, the material conditions in the cells were very modest in the Bălţi prison.
In addition, a number of inmates (in block no.
2 in particular) were placed in large capacity cells (30 beds in one cell of 60 m2, for instance), inevitably involving a lack of privacy for inmates in their daily life and designed to encourage the development of criminal subcultures.
The toilets were not always partitioned ...” COMPLAINTS 16.
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the material conditions of detention and lack of adequate medical assistance and food in Prison no.
11 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
17.
He also complains that he did not have, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, any effective remedies at his disposal for his complaint under Article 3.

Judgment

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF A.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no.
60450/13)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of A.C. v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President, Valeriu Griţco, Marko Bošnjak, judges,and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no.
60450/13) 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”) on 12 September 2013 by a Moldovan national, A.C., born in 1987 and living in Bălţi (“the applicant”) who had been granted legal aid and was represented by Mr A. Lungu, a lawyer practising in Durlești;
the decisions to give notice of the application and subsequently of the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol;
the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;
the decision from 9 April 2019 to declare inadmissible the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning material conditions of detention;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The case concerns the adequacy of medical care in detention and the hindrance of the applicant’s right of individual application. 2. The applicant, diagnosed, among others, with HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis complained that he did not receive adequate medical treatment for other health conditions while detained in prison no. 11 in Bălți from May 2012 to September 2014. According to the prison medical file, the applicant received treatment for various medical conditions albeit sometimes with a certain delay. 3. After the communication of the case to the Government in April 2014, the applicant complained that the prison doctor had warned him about the possible consequences of his application to the Court. Furthermore, the prison guards had threatened him with the worsening of detention conditions (transfer to prison no. 18 where he feared for his safety, and seizure of a cooking plate), and that his cell had been searched more frequently in order to put pressure on him to withdraw his application before the Court. On 29 July 2014 a cooking plate was seized from the applicant’s cell and on 25 September 2014 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 18, where according to him he obtained personal protection. 4. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about having no effective remedy in respect of his complaint on medical care. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5.
In view of similar complaints on material conditions of detention, in 2019 the Court decided to join this application with eleven others (see Tălămbuță and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), nos. 23151/09 and 11 other applications, § 12, 9 April 2019) and declared the applications partially inadmissible. 6. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other eleven and to examine it separately. 7. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about inadequate medical care in prison. The applicant’s complaints concerned notably an incident of dental pain in March 2013 for which he allegedly received treatment fourteen days later, the alleged lack of treatment for HIV‐opportunistic diseases and an alleged interruption of his ARV therapy for five days when transferred to another prison in September 2014. 8. The Government argued that, by omitting to claim compensation for the alleged damage caused by the alleged lack of medical care, the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court has already rejected such objections concerning applicants still in detention (Botnari v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 74441/14, § 23, 5 June 2018). As the Government did not submit any fresh evidence calling that finding into question, the Court concludes that their objection should be dismissed in the present case too. 9. The Government submitted that the applicant had received all necessary treatment shortly after it was requested. The Government argued that the applicant received monthly lots of ARV therapy in tablets but always had a reserve of tablets sufficient for seven days. The applicant received a set of tablets on 20 August and then another set on 30 September 2014; during the five days in between facilities he should have been able to use the reserve he had on him. 10. The applicant did not dispute the prison medical file submitted by the Government. 11. In respect of the dental care, on 20 February 2013 the applicant received treatment for mouth ulcers. On 20 March 2013 the applicant called for a doctor at 11.00 a.m., at 7.10 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. requesting a painkiller (Dimidrol). He was diagnosed with acute periodontitis and received antibiotic treatment. At an undecipherable date, a tooth was extracted. The medical file does not contain any record of pain medication for that period. Therefore, the Court is ready to accept the applicant’s allegation that he had not received pain medication immediately after he had requested. 12. In respect of the HIV-opportunistic illnesses, the applicant did not make specific submissions. According to the medical file, he was provided with medical assistance and medication on a fairly regular basis for various affections. 13. In respect of the interruption in the ARV therapy, the applicant did not dispute the information provided by the Government, according to which he should have had a sufficient reserve of tablets to cover the days during the transfer between facilities (see paragraph 9 above). 14. In these circumstances, the Court observes that, save for one incident in March 2013 when the applicant did not receive pain treatment immediately (see paragraph 11 above), in general he received dental care and treatment involving antibiotics and/or painkillers when he needed it. Assuming that pain treatment was indeed necessary on that occasion, the Court finds that such shortcoming was indeed regrettable; however, it cannot be considered to have severely affected the applicant’s health. In these circumstances, and having regard to the relatively short period of time in question, the Court considers that the treatment complained of cannot be considered as having caused the applicant suffering attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 3), nos. 41995/14 and 50276/15, § 98, 7 January 2020; by way of contrast, Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86‐94, 2 February 2016). 15. It follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 16. The applicant also complained under Article 34 of the Convention that the prison administration had hindered his right of individual application after the Government had been given notice of the case in April 2014. The applicant complained in successive letters mainly about the following elements of undue pressure: discussions in June 2014 with the prison doctor and two prison guards, threats to remove the cooking plate from his cell made in June 2014, threats to transfer him to prison no. 18 made in August 2014, multiple searches carried out from June to September 2014 with the seizure of the cooking plate in July 2014, and the transfer to prison no. 18 in September 2014. 17. The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of undue pressure had not been confirmed by the investigation carried out by the Bălți prosecutor’s office and that the decision to transfer him to prison no. 18 was taken on 10 September 2014 for unrelated reasons. The Government also noted that the applicant had never complained about any action of the prison administration, including the decision to transfer him to prison no. 18. The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint should be rejected for non‐exhaustion or as manifestly ill-founded. 18. The general principles for assessing whether the applicant was subject to pressure from authorities to withdraw or modify his complaints before the Court contrary to Article 34 of the Convention have been summarised in Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia ((striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 115, ECHR 2007‐I), Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, § 130, ECHR 2000‐VII), and Konstantin Markin v. Russia ([GC], no. 30078/06, § 158, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). 19. The Court reiterates that a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention is of a procedural nature and that therefore does not give rise to any issue of admissibility under the Convention (see, among other authorities, Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 176, 17 March 2016, with further references). 20. It is undisputed that after the case had been communicated, from 3 June to 25 September 2014, the applicant’s cell was searched on thirteen occasions, sometimes three-four times per week. On six occasions the searches resulted in the confiscation of prohibited objects (cigarettes, mobile phones, playing cards, charger for mobile phone, 6 kg of raw material for producing alcohol, a shaving blade). On 29 July 2014 the prison administration confiscated a hot plate because it was handcrafted and unsafe. The Government did not dispute the applicant’s submissions that his cell had not been searched so often before the communication of the case and failed to provide an explanation of why those had been necessary. 21. As to the seizure of the hot plate, the Court notes that the applicant submitted a document, according to which on 30 January 2014 T. had brought him a cooking plate, model HP-100, and on 12 February 2014 the prison staff signed the request, authorising the applicant to use it in his cell. In the investigation carried out by the Bălți prosecutor’s office, the prison administration first denied the existence of a hot plate and only later acknowledged that one had been seized in the course of searches. The Government did not dispute the document provided by the applicant, did not provide any explanation of these inconsistencies or of the concurrence of the alleged threat to seize the hot plate, made in June 2014 and its materialisation one month later. 22. In respect of the transfer to prison no. 18, the Court notes that according to the applicant upon his arrival in that prison he was granted protection. While the transfer could have been related to the normal management of penitentiary population, the Court notes that no explanation was provided of the concurrence of the alleged threat to transfer the applicant to prison no. 18, made in August 2014, and its materialisation in a formal decision on 10 September and in the actual transfer on 25 September 2014. 23. In respect of the alleged discussions and threats made by the prison staff, the investigation carried out by the Bălți prosecutor’s office concluded that the applicant’s allegations of psychological pressure had not been proven true. However, the investigation relied exclusively on the statements of two prison guards and did not include interviews of the prison doctor or of the applicant’s inmates. It also failed to explain the chronological consistency between the alleged threats and their subsequent materialisation (see paragraphs 21-22 above). 24. Given the applicant’s consistent submissions and in the absence of any other credible explanation, the Court considers that the prison administration approached the applicant to intimidate or dissuade him from pursuing his application before the Court. In these circumstances the State has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition. 25. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court has examined that part of the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 26. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27.
The applicant claimed 19,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and EUR 3,990 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, to be paid directly to his representative. He submitted a detailed timesheet of his representative’s work. 28. The Government argued that the claimed amounts were excessive and invited the Court to decide on equitable basis. 29. The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 EUR in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 30. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads (which presents EUR 1,850 less EUR 850, the sum received by way of legal aid), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. Both sums are to be paid to the applicant’s representative. 31. The Court further 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred 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, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Hasan Bakırcı Carlo RanzoniDeputy Registrar President

SECOND SECTION
CASE OF A.C. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no.
60450/13)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of A.C. v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Carlo Ranzoni, President, Valeriu Griţco, Marko Bošnjak, judges,and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no.
60450/13) 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”) on 12 September 2013 by a Moldovan national, A.C., born in 1987 and living in Bălţi (“the applicant”) who had been granted legal aid and was represented by Mr A. Lungu, a lawyer practising in Durlești;
the decisions to give notice of the application and subsequently of the complaint under Article 34 of the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol;
the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed;
the decision from 9 April 2019 to declare inadmissible the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning material conditions of detention;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE
1.
The case concerns the adequacy of medical care in detention and the hindrance of the applicant’s right of individual application. 2. The applicant, diagnosed, among others, with HIV, hepatitis C, tuberculosis complained that he did not receive adequate medical treatment for other health conditions while detained in prison no. 11 in Bălți from May 2012 to September 2014. According to the prison medical file, the applicant received treatment for various medical conditions albeit sometimes with a certain delay. 3. After the communication of the case to the Government in April 2014, the applicant complained that the prison doctor had warned him about the possible consequences of his application to the Court. Furthermore, the prison guards had threatened him with the worsening of detention conditions (transfer to prison no. 18 where he feared for his safety, and seizure of a cooking plate), and that his cell had been searched more frequently in order to put pressure on him to withdraw his application before the Court. On 29 July 2014 a cooking plate was seized from the applicant’s cell and on 25 September 2014 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 18, where according to him he obtained personal protection. 4. The applicant relied on Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention. He also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about having no effective remedy in respect of his complaint on medical care. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
5.
In view of similar complaints on material conditions of detention, in 2019 the Court decided to join this application with eleven others (see Tălămbuță and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), nos. 23151/09 and 11 other applications, § 12, 9 April 2019) and declared the applications partially inadmissible. 6. The Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin this application from the other eleven and to examine it separately. 7. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about inadequate medical care in prison. The applicant’s complaints concerned notably an incident of dental pain in March 2013 for which he allegedly received treatment fourteen days later, the alleged lack of treatment for HIV‐opportunistic diseases and an alleged interruption of his ARV therapy for five days when transferred to another prison in September 2014. 8. The Government argued that, by omitting to claim compensation for the alleged damage caused by the alleged lack of medical care, the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court has already rejected such objections concerning applicants still in detention (Botnari v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 74441/14, § 23, 5 June 2018). As the Government did not submit any fresh evidence calling that finding into question, the Court concludes that their objection should be dismissed in the present case too. 9. The Government submitted that the applicant had received all necessary treatment shortly after it was requested. The Government argued that the applicant received monthly lots of ARV therapy in tablets but always had a reserve of tablets sufficient for seven days. The applicant received a set of tablets on 20 August and then another set on 30 September 2014; during the five days in between facilities he should have been able to use the reserve he had on him. 10. The applicant did not dispute the prison medical file submitted by the Government. 11. In respect of the dental care, on 20 February 2013 the applicant received treatment for mouth ulcers. On 20 March 2013 the applicant called for a doctor at 11.00 a.m., at 7.10 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. requesting a painkiller (Dimidrol). He was diagnosed with acute periodontitis and received antibiotic treatment. At an undecipherable date, a tooth was extracted. The medical file does not contain any record of pain medication for that period. Therefore, the Court is ready to accept the applicant’s allegation that he had not received pain medication immediately after he had requested. 12. In respect of the HIV-opportunistic illnesses, the applicant did not make specific submissions. According to the medical file, he was provided with medical assistance and medication on a fairly regular basis for various affections. 13. In respect of the interruption in the ARV therapy, the applicant did not dispute the information provided by the Government, according to which he should have had a sufficient reserve of tablets to cover the days during the transfer between facilities (see paragraph 9 above). 14. In these circumstances, the Court observes that, save for one incident in March 2013 when the applicant did not receive pain treatment immediately (see paragraph 11 above), in general he received dental care and treatment involving antibiotics and/or painkillers when he needed it. Assuming that pain treatment was indeed necessary on that occasion, the Court finds that such shortcoming was indeed regrettable; however, it cannot be considered to have severely affected the applicant’s health. In these circumstances, and having regard to the relatively short period of time in question, the Court considers that the treatment complained of cannot be considered as having caused the applicant suffering attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 3), nos. 41995/14 and 50276/15, § 98, 7 January 2020; by way of contrast, Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86‐94, 2 February 2016). 15. It follows that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 16. The applicant also complained under Article 34 of the Convention that the prison administration had hindered his right of individual application after the Government had been given notice of the case in April 2014. The applicant complained in successive letters mainly about the following elements of undue pressure: discussions in June 2014 with the prison doctor and two prison guards, threats to remove the cooking plate from his cell made in June 2014, threats to transfer him to prison no. 18 made in August 2014, multiple searches carried out from June to September 2014 with the seizure of the cooking plate in July 2014, and the transfer to prison no. 18 in September 2014. 17. The Government submitted that the applicant’s allegations of undue pressure had not been confirmed by the investigation carried out by the Bălți prosecutor’s office and that the decision to transfer him to prison no. 18 was taken on 10 September 2014 for unrelated reasons. The Government also noted that the applicant had never complained about any action of the prison administration, including the decision to transfer him to prison no. 18. The Government argued that the applicant’s complaint should be rejected for non‐exhaustion or as manifestly ill-founded. 18. The general principles for assessing whether the applicant was subject to pressure from authorities to withdraw or modify his complaints before the Court contrary to Article 34 of the Convention have been summarised in Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia ((striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 115, ECHR 2007‐I), Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, § 130, ECHR 2000‐VII), and Konstantin Markin v. Russia ([GC], no. 30078/06, § 158, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). 19. The Court reiterates that a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention is of a procedural nature and that therefore does not give rise to any issue of admissibility under the Convention (see, among other authorities, Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 176, 17 March 2016, with further references). 20. It is undisputed that after the case had been communicated, from 3 June to 25 September 2014, the applicant’s cell was searched on thirteen occasions, sometimes three-four times per week. On six occasions the searches resulted in the confiscation of prohibited objects (cigarettes, mobile phones, playing cards, charger for mobile phone, 6 kg of raw material for producing alcohol, a shaving blade). On 29 July 2014 the prison administration confiscated a hot plate because it was handcrafted and unsafe. The Government did not dispute the applicant’s submissions that his cell had not been searched so often before the communication of the case and failed to provide an explanation of why those had been necessary. 21. As to the seizure of the hot plate, the Court notes that the applicant submitted a document, according to which on 30 January 2014 T. had brought him a cooking plate, model HP-100, and on 12 February 2014 the prison staff signed the request, authorising the applicant to use it in his cell. In the investigation carried out by the Bălți prosecutor’s office, the prison administration first denied the existence of a hot plate and only later acknowledged that one had been seized in the course of searches. The Government did not dispute the document provided by the applicant, did not provide any explanation of these inconsistencies or of the concurrence of the alleged threat to seize the hot plate, made in June 2014 and its materialisation one month later. 22. In respect of the transfer to prison no. 18, the Court notes that according to the applicant upon his arrival in that prison he was granted protection. While the transfer could have been related to the normal management of penitentiary population, the Court notes that no explanation was provided of the concurrence of the alleged threat to transfer the applicant to prison no. 18, made in August 2014, and its materialisation in a formal decision on 10 September and in the actual transfer on 25 September 2014. 23. In respect of the alleged discussions and threats made by the prison staff, the investigation carried out by the Bălți prosecutor’s office concluded that the applicant’s allegations of psychological pressure had not been proven true. However, the investigation relied exclusively on the statements of two prison guards and did not include interviews of the prison doctor or of the applicant’s inmates. It also failed to explain the chronological consistency between the alleged threats and their subsequent materialisation (see paragraphs 21-22 above). 24. Given the applicant’s consistent submissions and in the absence of any other credible explanation, the Court considers that the prison administration approached the applicant to intimidate or dissuade him from pursuing his application before the Court. In these circumstances the State has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition. 25. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court has examined that part of the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. 26. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27.
The applicant claimed 19,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and EUR 3,990 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, to be paid directly to his representative. He submitted a detailed timesheet of his representative’s work. 28. The Government argued that the claimed amounts were excessive and invited the Court to decide on equitable basis. 29. The Court awards the applicant EUR 4,500 EUR in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 30. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads (which presents EUR 1,850 less EUR 850, the sum received by way of legal aid), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. Both sums are to be paid to the applicant’s representative. 31. The Court further 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred 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, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_2}
Hasan Bakırcı Carlo RanzoniDeputy Registrar President