CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2025

.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 } Published on 10 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 10652/19 Maxim TCACI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 February 2019 communicated on 21 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged degrading treatment of the applicant through regular strip-searches by the prison administration, when leaving his cell, without any reason given. In 2006 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and is serving his sentence in prison no. 17 in Rezina. The applicant claims that throughout his detention he has been body searched or strip-searched each time he leaves his cell, without any reason given. On 5 December 2017 the applicant asked the prison administration whether he posed any danger to inmates, prison staff, or other people, or whether he had refused to participate in the evaluation programme. On 26   December 2017 he was informed that following the evaluation of his emotional state through various psychotherapy activities, psychological counselling sessions, and psychodiagnostics evaluations, he did not at that time pose any danger to other inmates or staff members of penitentiary no.   17. The applicant completed all the lessons of the evaluation programme with the grade “good”. On 15 December 2017 the applicant informed the director of penitentiary no. 17 that he was subjected to body or strip-searches each time when leaving his prison cell. On 26 December 2017 the director replied that all the procedures were in accordance with the law and internal regulations. The applicant initiated court proceedings against the prison administration, arguing that he was body or strip-searched and handcuffed when leaving his cell, without any reason given. He also claimed that other inmates (the so-called “thieves-in-law”) enjoy preferential treatment and that he is being discriminated. In their submissions to the court, the prison administration argued that all the procedures in respect of the applicant were in accordance with the law and internal regulations. On 22 June 2018 the Rezina District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. It found that the applicant moved around the penitentiary institution without handcuffs and that the body or strip-searches were lawful and in accordance with internal regulations. By a final decision of the Court of Appeal of 24 October 2018, his complaint was rejected. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, notably by being strip-searched every time when leaving his cell, by the prison administration, without any reason given (see, Milka v.   Poland , no. 14322/12, §§ 41-50, 15 September 2015, Dejnek v. Poland , no.   9635/13, §§ 70-77, 1 June 2017 and mutatis mutandis , Shlykov and Others v. Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 69-76, 19 January 2021, and Goriunov v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 14466/12, § 33, 29 May 2018)?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention right under Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with other inmates (the so-called “thieves-in-law”)? If so, was that difference in treatment objectively justified in the circumstances of the present case?