CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 June 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 24466/18 Svetlana SAJINA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 May 2018 communicated on 2 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure of Moldovan authorities to effectively protect the applicant from domestic violence and to investigate effectively such violent actions. In particular, the applicant and her husband at the time lived in Moldova but also had business in Ukraine. Before Moldovan authorities she complained about death threats and domestic violence (broken nose bone, use of firearm) by her husband in December 2015, about death threats and her husband forcing her out of her home in Moldova in January 2016 and about further threats in November 2018. A criminal investigation was initially refused by the prosecutor who estimated that the death threats had not caused any suffering because there had been no real risk of such threats materialising. The applicant appealed against this decision and in 2016 the courts ordered a criminal investigation to be carried out. On 27 November 2017 the investigation was finally discontinued with a finding that the acts of violence had allegedly taken place only in Ukraine as the applicant and the alleged perpetrator had divorced in the meantime and therefore there could be no matter of domestic violence. In the meantime, the applicant sought and obtained two partial protection orders (on 14 October 2016 and on 22 February 2017) which had prohibited the perpetrator to come in contact with her. The courts refused to order the perpetrator’s removal from their common home, arguing that the applicant had failed to substantiate her allegations of being the only owner of the apartment. On 16 November 2018 the applicant obtained a third protection order on similar grounds. The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention? In particular, (a)     Were the authorities aware of the acts of domestic violence against the applicant? Did they comply with their positive obligation to take all necessary steps to protect her rights, as required by Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Osman v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII; and more recently, Luca v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 55351/17, §§ 60, 64-74, 17 October 2023; Vieru   v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 17106/18, §§ 101-106, 19   November 2024)? (b)     Having regard to the procedural protection of the rights protected under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 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 domestic violence, and to bring the perpetrator to account by imposing sanctions? (see, for example, Luca , cited above, §§ 75-79; Vieru cited above, §§ 84-89)? 2.     Has the applicant suffered gender-based discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 §   1 of the Convention (see, for example, Luca , cited above, §§ 101-107; Vieru , cited above, §§ 127-135)?