CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 }   Published on 11 April 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25325/16 Veaceslav MALAI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 April 2016 communicated on SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicant’s wife’s (G.) death as a result of a road traffic incident in 2012. The criminal investigation was repeatedly discontinued by the prosecutor on the ground that G. was responsible for the accident and the applicant’s appeals were repeatedly upheld on the ground that the investigation had been unilateral and incomplete, including four years after the events. The applicant complains of a violation of his rights under Article 2 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph   104 of Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation into G.’s death as a result of a road traffic incident by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   2 of the Convention ( Nicolae   Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 157-71, 25 June 2019; Ciobanu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 62578/09, 24 February 2015)?