CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mars 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 }   Communicated on 29 March 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 13472/18 Serghei COSOVAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged insufficiency of medical treatment given to the applicant in detention, as required by his condition (complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 13). It also raises an issue under Article 5 § 3 (reasons for detention pending trial). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention in the present case (see, for instance, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and   Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 177-182, ECHR 2016)? In particular: (a)     What specific medical treatment does the applicant’s condition require, notably in view of the prescription in the latest medical certificate of 2   March 2018 that the applicant be “treated on an in-patient basis ( în condiții de staționar )” and monitored by a hepatic specialist? (b)     Does the medical care available in prison no. 3 in Chișinău and the Pruncul hospital prison no. 16 offer the type of treatment required by the applicant’s condition, notably in-patient treatment and monitoring of a hepatic specialist? Has he received such care as prescribed by the doctors throughout his detention? Please provide a breakdown of the exact periods and places in which he had been treated since his arrest. (c)     Is the possibility to transfer the applicant to a civilian hospital whenever there is an emergency sufficient to prevent any risk to his life and health? (d)     Is the applicant’s condition compatible with detention, notably in view of the provisions of Article 95(2) of the Criminal Code and of Order no. 331 (6.09.2006) of the Ministry of Justice concerning the manner of submitting requests for release by seriously ill convicts (Section 7.2 in annex no. 2)?   2.     Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts give relevant and sufficient reasons for ordering and extending the applicant’s detention pending trial (see, for instance, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   115 ‑ 123, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?