CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .sEE8FA83B { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } THIRD SECTION Application no. 62578/09 Veronica CIOBANU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 14 November 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Veronica Ciobanu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Fîrlădeni. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Osoianu, a lawyer practising in Ialoveni. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant’s late husband, Mr Alexandru Ciobanu, was a taxi driver and died at work, in a car accident on 4 April 2008. The present application is about the circumstances of his death and the investigation carried out by the Moldovan authorities into those circumstances. According to two eyewitnesses, on 4 April 2008 at approximately 11   p.m., the victim’s car was turning left at a junction in the town of Hâncești. His car had its left indicator on and slowed down before starting the manoeuvre. When the victim’s car had already passed on the opposite side of the road, a speeding car coming from behind hit it in the left side doors and propelled it onto a light pole from the side of the road. According to the witnesses, the speeding car was driving at more than 100 km/hour before the impact. The victim died on the spot from multiple injuries to his head and internal organs. The two occupants of the car which hit the victim’s car were not injured in the accident. They stated during the investigation that they were travelling at some 40-50 km/hour when the victim’s car, which was parked on the right side of the road, suddenly went left. They could not avoid the impact. During the criminal investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office obtained two expert reports, which, however, did not provide any useful information. Their conclusions were that the victim’s car was turning left and the rear going car hit the victim’s car into the doors on its left side. The experts did not provide any information on the speed of the rear going car or any other relevant information. The applicant requested to have an expert of her choice participating in the group of experts and to be involved in the conduct of the experts’ work. She relied on law provisions providing for such rights. She also requested for a confrontation between the eyewitnesses and the persons from the rear going car to be carried out. However, her attempts and requests were not successful. On 23 March 2009 the Hâncești Prosecutor’s Office decided to discontinue the criminal investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s husband’s death. The applicant appealed. On 9 April 2009 the hierarchically superior prosecutor from the Hâncești Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Hâncești Prosecutor’s Office of 23 March 2009. He argued that no independent expert opinion or hearing of the experts were necessary because the facts of the accident were clearly established. The applicant challenged the decision of the Hâncești Prosecutor’s Office of 23 March 2009 before the investigating judge, who dismissed it on 14 May 2009 arguing that that decision had been upheld by the superior prosecutor on 9   April 2009 and that, therefore, it could not be challenged. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the investigation into the circumstances of her husband’s death was not effective. 2.     She also complains that the criminal investigation in respect of the accident which led to her husband’s death was not fair as required by Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the State’s positive obligations arising in respect of the protection of the right to life (see Railean v. Moldova , no. 23401/04, 5   January 2010), was the criminal investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in the present case in compliance with the procedural obligations provided for by Article 2 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full copy of the case file.