CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s4958DB86 { width:3.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sF4FBF630 { width:11.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDA690E2D { width:19.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD54156B9 { width:65.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9153D187 { width:3.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sC2B0EE75 { width:11.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5064B915 { width:19.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCAE9563 { width:65.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s8D8F5921 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 17106/18 Viorel VIERU against the Republic of Moldova and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CAES The cases concern the alleged failure of Moldovan authorities to effectively protect the applicants and their children, or their next-of-kin from domestic violence and to investigate effectively such violent actions. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Articles 2 (only in application no.   17106/18), 3, 8, and 14 of the Convention, as detailed in the table below. A short summary of each application is provided in the appendix. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Articles 2 (only in application no.   17106/18), 3 and 8 of the Convention ? In particular, (a)     Were the authorities aware of the acts of domestic violence against T. (in application no. 17106/18) and against the applicants (in application no.   35558/18)? Did they comply with their positive obligation to take all necessary steps to protect their rights, as required by Articles 2 (in application no. 17106/18), 3 and 8 (in applications nos. 17106/18 and 35558/18) of the Convention (see Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII; Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   3564/11, 28 May 2013)? (b)     Having regard to the procedural protection of the rights protected under Articles 2 (only in application no. 17106/18), 3 and 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 (only in application no. 17106/18), 3 and 8 of the Convention ( Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, §§ 108-13, ECHR 2009)? Did the Moldovan authorities discharge the obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the acts of violence, including domestic violence, and to bring the perpetrators to account by imposing sanctions? (see, for example, A. v. Croatia , no.   55164/08, §   67, 14 October 2010; Valiulienė v. Lithuania , no. 33234/07, § 85, 26 March 2013)?   2.     Have the applicants or their next-of-kin suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 2 (only in application no. 17106/18), 3 and 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Opuz v. Turkey , no. 33401/02, §§ 184‑91, ECHR 2009, Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 3564/11, § 85, 28 May 2013 and Volodina v. Russia , no. 41261/17, §§ 109-14, 9 July 2019)?   No. Application no. and date of lodging Applicants’ name Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Representative Summary of facts and complaints 1. 17106/18 Lodged on 04/04/2018 Viorel VIERU born in 1974 living in Chișinău Moldovan   Represented by Violeta ANDRIUŢA From 2012 to 2016 the applicant’s sister, T., was subject to repeated episodes of domestic violence at the hands of her former husband, despite numerous protection orders. On 22   August 2016, after she was again subject to violence, T. threw herself from the balcony on the fifth floor. She died from the injuries on 12 October 2016. On 28   February 2018 the Supreme Court of Justice finally upheld the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings against the former husband because his acts did not qualify as the criminal offence of domestic violence (insufficient gravity of the injuries, not a family member) nor as an administrative offence (no legal provision on domestic violence); and the proceedings concerning his failure to enforce protection orders were time-barred. The applicant, who was admitted to those proceedings as T.’s heir, was awarded 50,000   Moldovan lei (equal at the time to 2,417 euros) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He complains under Articles 2, 3, 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention concerning the failure of domestic authorities to prevent and to protect T. from violence at the hands of her former husband, including to secure the enforcement of protection orders. 2. 35558/18 lodged on 05/07/2018 D.R .[( anonymity has been granted )] born in 1977 A.C. [( anonymity has been granted )] born in 2005,   both living in Chișinău and Moldovan nationals   Represented by Violeta ANDRIUŢA The applicants are mother and daughter, who have been subject to or witnessed in 2015 ‑ 2016 repeated episodes of domestic violence at the hands of A., the first applicant’s partner and father to the second applicant, despite several protection orders. On 3 April 2018 the Chișinău Court of Appeal finally upheld the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings in respect of A. on charges of domestic violence as time-barred (a more serious form of domestic violence, which would not have been time-barred, included psychological violence but the evidence of psychological violence in respect of the second applicant was discarded as not “fitting” the definition).   The applicants complain under Article 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention concerning the failure of domestic authorities to prevent and protect them from violence at the hands of A., as well as to conduct an effective investigation into all instances of violence which had been reported to them (including psychological violence in respect of the second applicant) and to bring A. to account. 3. 26765/21 Lodged on 07/05/2021 Marina COVGANEȚ born in 1981 Living in Chișinău Moldovan   Represented by Violeta ANDRIUŢA On 24 August 2016 the applicant and her husband, I., had a quarrel during which they assaulted each other. Criminal investigations on charges of domestic violence were initiated and discontinued in September 2016 in respect of them both. The prosecutor concluded that the assault on the applicant did not qualify as violence because she had provoked the quarrel and I. had hit her in self-defence. In 2017 the investigation in respect of I. was reopened after an appeal by the applicant was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal but in 2019 the case was closed again on the same grounds as before. The applicant’s appeals were rejected.   The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention concerning the failure of domestic authorities to investigate the incident of violence at the hands of I.