CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 novembre 2024

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 9 December 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 580/21 Eduard POPA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 23 December 2020 communicated on 22 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ongoing failure of Moldovan authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police on 19 November 2005 and resulting in the impunity of the perpetrators, after the adoption of the Court’s judgment in Eduard Popa v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 17008/07, 12 February 2013). Background to the case The factual background of this case was described in Eduard Popa v. the Republic of Moldova (cited above, §§ 5-31). The applicant, aged twenty-four at the time, complained that he had been beaten up by police officers and left lying on the bank of a lake; owing to the low temperatures he had suffered severe frostbite to his limbs, and later, on 8 December 2005, both his feet and eight of his fingers were amputated. In that judgment the Court found a procedural violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the Moldovan authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police on 19 November 2005. However, due to the deficiencies of the investigation, the Court found it impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether or not the applicant had been in police custody on the morning of 19 November 2015 and whether he had been ill-treated by police officers (ibid., § 50). On 24 February 2014, in the context of the procedure for the execution of the Court’s judgment, the Government submitted an action plan indicating that the criminal investigation was pending at domestic level. To date, the Committee of Ministers has not yet concluded the supervision of the execution of the judgment under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. Criminal investigation of the case after the delivery Court’s judgment on 12 February 2013 On 1 April 2014 the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office suspended the criminal investigation, finding that all investigative measures had been undertaken and no suspect had been identified. The applicant challenged that decision. On 15   May 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office found deficiencies in the investigation, annulled the above-mentioned decision and ordered a fresh re-examination of the case by the Chișinău prosecutor’s office. In 2015 the applicant and his parents were interviewed by the prosecutor. The applicant insisted that he could identify two police officers concerned. On 22 September 2016 the applicant was informed that a new forensic medical examination was requested. When invited to be examined by the experts, the applicant was unable to attend on the proposed date and requested another appointment. However, the prosecutor never informed the applicant about a new date for the examination. The medical examination was never carried out because the forensic experts had refused to conduct it based exclusively on the case medical file. The applicant was informed about their refusal on 17 November 2017. On 5 and 7 June 2017 the two police officers who had searched the applicant’s house on 19 November 2005 were charged with torture and ill-treatment (Article 309 1 of the Criminal Code). The charges were however dropped in 2020, since the applicant did not identify them as his aggressors. At the applicant’s request a new forensic medical examination was initiated and on 19 September 2018 the applicant was interviewed. The forensic experts could not conclude that the applicant had suffered a head injury during the alleged attack of 19 November 2005. They explained that the findings of the applicant’s independent medical examination of 2016, which found that he had suffered approximately twenty head injuries, could be attributed to a multitude of potential causes. On 21 May 2019 the applicant asked the prosecutor to identify those involved in the search on 19 November 2005, to order a re-hearing of the two police officers who had searched his house and lastly to interview the police officer who had been in charge of and had coordinated the search. On 8 June 2020 the prosecutor identified police officer D.S. as the one who had coordinated the search and interviewed him as a witness. On 18 June 2020 the prosecutor presented the applicant with photos of police officers involved in the search. The applicant identified S.M. as one of the police officers who had caught him. On 19 June 2020 S.M. was charged under Article 309 1 of the Criminal Code (torture and ill-treatment). On 30 June 2020 the prosecutor suspended the criminal investigation in respect of S.M. because he had absconded. The proceedings are still pending. The applicant complains under the substantive and procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In particular, he argues that the recently obtained evidence corroborated his allegation that he had been in the custody of the police and had been ill-treated by them putting his life at risk. The applicant complains that the national authorities failed anew to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment by the police on 19 November 2005 and of being left unconscious at the edge of a pond at below-zero temperatures putting his life at risk. The applicant also argues that the expiry of the statute of limitation may preclude the prosecution of the perpetrators. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the fact that the execution of Eduard Popa v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 17008/07, 12 February 2013) is currently pending before the Committee of Ministers, and taking into account the measures taken so far by the respondent Government to abide by the Court’s judgment, are the complaints related to the execution of the judgment within the jurisdiction of the Court (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 47-48, 11 July 2017; V.D. v.   Croatia (no.   2) , no. 19421/15, § 46, 15 November 2018)? In particular, were there any factual developments and any new events or circumstances not determined by the above Eduard Popa judgment which could be said to raise a “new issue” capable of triggering a fresh investigative obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and thus a possible breach of those provisions (see Egmez v.   Cyprus , no.12214/07, § 62, 18 September 2012)?   2.     If so, in the light of the new circumstances of the case:   (a)     Has the applicant’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention been violated in the present case?   (b)     Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life and procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment was the investigation in the present case done by the domestic authorities in compliance with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention with respect to the period after the Court’s judgment in the case of Eduard Popa v. the Republic of Moldova on 12 February 2013 (see S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no.   60561/14, §§   312-319, 25 June 2020; Ciorcan and Others v. Romania , nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09, §§ 118-27, 27 January 2015)?