CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 24 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21029/13 Liuda IACHIMOVSCHI against the Republic of Moldova and 5 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE All the applications mentioned above concern violence caused by private individuals and/or the danger of repeated such violence, as well as the alleged insufficiency of investigations and/or impunity of the perpetrators (see details of the complaints in the Appendix). They raise the issue of whether the authorities have complied with their positive obligation, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, to prevent such violence and to prosecute those responsible for it. Some of the applications raise additional issues under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, as explained in the appendix. The applicants raised some of their complaints under Articles 6 and/or 13, which are more appropriate to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In each of the applications mentioned above, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the acts of violence committed by private individuals (see, for instance, E.M. v. Romania , no. 43994/05, § 59, 30   October 2012)?   2.     In application no. 23914/15, were the applicants subjected to discrimination based on their sexual orientation contrary to the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and/or   8? If so, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation to prevent and prosecute those responsible for such discrimination, notably for hate speech and violent acts (see, for instance, M.C. and A.C. v. Romania , no.   12060/12, §§ 105-26, 12 April 2016)?   3.     In application no. 21029/13, was the applicant subjected to discrimination based on her sex in the form of family violence, contrary to the requirements of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 and/or 8? If so, the authorities comply with their positive obligation to prevent and prosecute those responsible for such discrimination through violence (see, for instance, Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   74839/10, §§ 39-55, 16   July 2013, and Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, §§   80 ‑ 90, 28 May 2013)?   4.     In application no. 26806/15 has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts give sufficient reasons for adopting their judgments, notably by reacting to the applicant’s argument that she could not use the apartment in common with her ex ‑ husband given the instances of past violence against her and her fear of repeated violence (see, for instance, Mitrofan v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   50054/07, §§ 48-55, 15 January 2013 and, mutatis mutandis , B.   v.   the   Republic of Moldova , no. 61382/09, § 57, 16   July 2013)? APPENDIX   Name and application no. Date of introduction Complaints 1 Iachimovschi, no. 21029/13 25 March 2013 Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention – family violence; failure to protect against such violence and to prosecute effectively the perpetrator; impunity; impossibility to live in the common house for her and her children for fear of violence; Article 14 taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 – discrimination through family violence based on her sex;   2 Grossu, no.   40620/14 10 May 2014 Article 3 of the Convention – failure to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment by a neighbour; toleration of such treatment and impunity; failure to offer special protection to him, a minor, by choosing a mild legal qualification of the perpetrator’s actions (administrative instead of criminal) and re ‑ victimisation by confronting his aggressor in the absence of a psychologist and a lawyer;   3 Genderdoc-M and M.D., no   23914/15 5 May 2015 Article 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 – sexual orientation related violence by a third party and insufficient investigation thereof; discontinuation of proceedings against the alleged perpetrator and resulting impunity; Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 – tolerance by the authorities of sexual orientation related hate speech;   4 Andronesi, no.   26806/15 19 May 2015 Article 3 of the Convention – having to share the apartment with the applicant’s ex ‑ husband who had repeatedly used physical and moral violence against her causes her fear of future similar violence; Article 6 of the Convention – the domestic courts’ failure to analyse in any specific manner the applicant’s argument that she cannot live with her ex-husband in the same apartment for fear of repeated violence;   5 Apopii, no.   32617/16 25 May 2016 Article 3 and 13 of the Convention – ill-treatment by third parties, allegedly in the presence of the police; insufficient investigation thereof;   6 Gutium, no.   49542/16 16 August 2016 Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention – the applicant’s rights as a victim of ill ‑ treatment by third parties were not observed; impunity of the attackers; wrong dropping of charges against two   of the attackers.