CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 31 March 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 54764/18 Vladimir OULIANOV against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 November 2018 communicated on 10 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s cousin in allegedly suspicious circumstances and the alleged ineffective investigation into those circumstances of his death. In particular, the applicant’s cousin, I.M. died on 27 January 2010 of severe cardiac insufficiency after in July 2009, while in a psychiatric institution, he had sold his house for an insignificant amount, followed by months of unexplained deteriorating health. In 2013 the applicant made a criminal complaint seeking a criminal investigation into the circumstances of I.M.’s death, noting, among others, the suspicious sale of his house, his sudden and inexplicable deteriorating health which resulted in his inability to move, the presence of alcohol in his blood the day of his death, the funeral which was organised the day following his death by the same persons who had acquired the deceased’s house. On 10 September 2013 the Bălți prosecutor’s office rejected the complaint as ill-founded, however, upon the applicant’s appeal, on 14 May 2014 the Bălți investigating judge annulled that decision and ordered additional investigative measures (hearing specific witnesses, a forensic expert report potentially requiring the exhumation of the deceased’s remains). Subsequently, the prosecutor refused to open a criminal investigation on three more occasions and each time the courts upheld the applicant’s appeals, annulled the prosecutor’s decisions, noting the prosecutor’s failure to comply with the previous court orders, and sought additional investigative measures to be carried out. In the meantime, in 2016 the case was transferred from the Bălți to the Râșcani prosecutor’s office. The preliminary investigation managed to identify the burial site and ordered a forensic report. However a forensic examination had not been possible because the histological report had been destroyed a year after I.M’s death. The additional hearing of witnesses had been equally impossible, either because some had died in the meantime or could not be located. On 8 August 2017 the Râșcani prosecutor’s office again rejected the applicant’s criminal complaint, noting the absence of any fresh evidence and of leads for further investigation. This decision was finally upheld by the Bălți Court of Appeal on 11 May 2018. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the deficient investigation into his cousin’s death. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Does the applicant have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 2 of the Convention’s concerning the investigation into the circumstances of his cousin’s death (see, for examples of various acceptable degrees of kinship, Fabris and Parziale v. Italy , no. 41603/13, §§ 37-41, 19 March 2020)?   2.     Did the investigation in respect of the applicant’s cousin’s death comply with the requirements under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, was that investigation conducted promptly and free of deficiencies capable of undermining the authorities’ ability to establish the cause of the victim’s death and to identify the perpetrator or perpetrators, if any (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey , no. 13094/02 , § 51 et seq., 27 May 2008 and Ciobanu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 62578/09, §§ 32-40, 24   February 2015)?