CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }     Communicated on 18 December 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7816/13 Denis MAIER against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 December 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Denis Maier, is a Moldovan national, who was born in   1978 and lives in Chișinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Habravan, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 20 July 2012 the applicant together with M. were driving next to the Codru police station when plain-clothed persons exited a police car and stopped the applicant’s car. The applicant was pulled out of the car, hit and then taken to the Centru police station, where he was ill-treated. According to the applicant, M. had witnessed the ill-treatment. On 24 July 2012 a medical examination confirmed multiple bruises on the applicant’s face, thorax and right limbs. On 25 July 2012 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the General Prosecutor’s Office seeking the investigation of his ill-treatment by the police officers. The complaint was redirected to the Centru Prosecutor’s Office which by a decision of 29 August 2012 refused to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor argued that the injuries resulted from the immobilization carried out by police officers when the applicant tried to dispose of incriminating evidence (syringes with drugs). He relied on the statements of three police officers and noted that M. was not heard because he failed to come when summoned. On 18 September 2012 the applicant appealed the prosecutor’s decision, arguing that the eye-witness M. had not been heard and that the investigation was superficial. On 28 September 2012 the hierarchically superior prosecutor upheld the decision of 29 August 2012. The applicant appealed. On 8 November 2012 the Centru District investigating judge upheld the previous decisions and rejected the applicant’s appeal reiterating the reasons provided by the prosecutor before. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. He also argues that the State authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in respect of his complaint about ill-treatment.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Tomasi v. France , judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241 ‑ A)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in the present case effective for the purposes of that Article?