CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 août 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 September 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26660/18 Petru CREȚU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 May 2018 communicated on 20 August 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the alleged failure of Moldovan authorities to effectively investigate the applicant’s ill-treatment by private individuals, allegedly motivated by anti-Roma sentiment. In particular, on 1 June 2016 the applicant was attacked by several individuals. As a result, he was hospitalised for ten days and his injuries were classified as of intermediate severity (two broken ribs, a collapsed lung and multiples bruises). An investigation was initiated on 15 June 2016 in respect of several individuals. However, on 25 June 2016 the case was maintained only in respect of one individual (L.V.). Witness statements and criminal investigating documents referred to the applicant as “Petru the Roma” ( romul Petru ). The applicant and a witness submitted that anti-Roma slurs had been expressed during the attack and that L.V. had been seeking revenge for an attack on his mother by a Roma person in the past. The applicant’s representatives appealed the prosecutor’s decision to pursue the investigation in respect of L.V. only and their failure to investigate a hate motive for the violent attack but to no avail. The case was sent for trial and on 20 October 2016 L.V. was convicted for inflicting bodily harm, sentenced to 140 hours of community service and ordered to pay the applicant 5,000 Moldovan lei (equivalent at the time to 250   euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The first instance court rejected the applicant’s complaints concerning the ineffective investigation into the racial motive of the crime by concluding that the applicant “was not Roma, his mother [was] Moldovan, his looks also did not appear different from the majority” in his community. The applicant’s appeals to the appellate and cassation courts raising complaints concerning the inefficiency of the investigation into the racial motive of the crime were rejected as ill-founded and the reasons of the first instance court were upheld. The final domestic judgment was delivered on 30 November 2017. The applicant complains under Article 14 read in conjunction with the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention that the investigation into the attack against him had been ineffective because it had failed to investigate and punish a racially motivated crime, including due to the “institutional anti-Gypsyism” of the Moldovan authorities. He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention read together with Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention about the inadequate hate crime legislation and its implementation in the Republic of Moldova which prevented him from obtaining an effective protection against racially-motivated violence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph   131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities ineffective (see Stoica v. Romania , no.   42722/02, §§ 119-133, 4   March 2008)? In particular, have the authorities taken all reasonable steps to investigate any possible racist motivation behind the alleged attack on the applicant, as required by Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 3 (see Abdu v. Bulgaria , no. 26827/08, §§ 44-46, 11 March 2014, and Balázs v. Hungary , no. 15529/12, §§ 47 to 76, 20 October 2015)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 read in conjunction with Article 14, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   Did the dismissal of the applicant’s complaints concerning the failure to investigate the hate motive of the violence against him deprive him of an effective remedy in breach of Article   13 of the Convention, read together with Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention?