CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s84388054 { width:9.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sAE1F5105 { width:14.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4214325C { width:13.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB3308C3 { width:20.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE3F84B33 { width:31.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s5EDC7B99 { width:9.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE2384BB { width:14.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85023616 { width:13.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1169A383 { width:20.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD9E05B4E { width:31.96%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 47444/14 C.A. against the Republic of Moldova (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   October 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda, President,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10   June 2014, Having regard to the decision to grant the applicant anonymity under Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Ms V. Andriuţa, a lawyer practising in Sîngera. The applicant complained to Moldovan authorities that she had been raped. During the criminal proceedings she was repeatedly questioned in the presence of the perpetrator, without special measures taken to protect her as a minor and a rape victim. The courts convicted the perpetrator and sentenced him to a twelve-year prison term. They also awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 37,000 Moldovan lei (approximately 1,750 euros). The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation of her rape and her re-victimisation during the criminal proceedings against her rapist were communicated to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention The Government acknowledged the “breach of [the applicant’s] rights under the Convention, as communicated by the Court... due to the apparent ineffectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s rape and her re-victimisation during that investigation”. They also stated that the national authorities avoid the re-victimisation of all aggrieved parties and insisted that the re-victimisation of the applicant in the present case was rather unique in its nature. The Government further mentioned the strict prohibition thereof by the national authorities. Finally, they offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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. The applicant submitted that although the Government’s acknowledgment of the breach of her rights was welcomed, the declaration made was unacceptable. She noted that she continued suffering from the consequences of the crime committed and had to move to another town. Moreover, there was still a lack of effective protection of underage victims of rape in criminal proceedings. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the obligation, under Article 3 of the Convention, to ensure an effective investigation into allegations of rape (see, for example, X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 196 et seq. , 2 February 2021). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the fact that in the present case the investigation eventually led to the final conviction and sentence of the offender to twelve years’ imprisonment, and the fact that the applicant was awarded compensation domestically, as well as taking into account the amount of compensation proposed by the Government under the unilateral declaration – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 November 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 47444/14 10/06/2014   C.A. 1997 Andriuţa Violeta Sângera 13/02/2020 22/06/2020 9,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.