CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 avril 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 26 April 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24804/14 Marcel MIRON against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the manner in which the State discharged its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. The applicant, a minor at the time of the events, entered an unsecured electric transformer in his village and suffered severe injuries dangerous for his life. A criminal investigation and a civil lawsuit followed but ended without any result because the courts found that the accused electricity distribution company did not own the transformer in question. It does not appear from the case materials that the investigation identified the owner of the electric transformer although it was speculated that it might have been a bankrupt privately owned company. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies?   2.     Did the State have a positive obligation to protect the applicant’s life (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89 and 90, ECHR   2004 ‑ XII? If so, did the respondent State discharge its positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the State enact clear legislation such as to regulate the obligation to ensure the security and control of electric transformers and to determine in a clear manner the responsibility for such obligation?   3.     Having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII), did the State discharge its obligation to put in place a mechanism permitting to identify and punish those responsible for the accident in which the applicant was involved?