CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2018

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 24 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23092/14 Anna GOSPODINOVA against the Republic of Moldova and two other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE All applications mentioned above concern the alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into the death of the applicant’s relatives. They raise issues under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. In application no. 68490/14 the particular issue raised is the lenience of the initial sentence (suspended prison term), which allowed the perpetrators to flee the country, as well as the insufficiency of the measures taken in order to find their current whereabouts. Application no. 29162/14 also concerns the excessive duration of the civil proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for damages resulting from the excessive duration of the criminal investigation into her daughter’s death. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In each of the applications mentioned above, has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the death of the applicants’ daughters and were the applicants’ rights to be kept informed of the course of the investigation observed (see, for instance, Iorga v. Moldova , no. 12219/05, §§ 24-37, 23   March 2010)?   2.     In application no. 29162/14, has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to claim compensation for the protracted investigation of the criminal case regarding her daughter’s death conducted within a reasonable time, as required by that provision (see, for instance, Cravcenco v. Moldova , no. 13012/02, §§ 42-58, 15 January 2008)?   APPENDIX   Name and appl. no. Date of ntroduction Complaints 1 Gospodinova, no. 23092/14 8 March 2014 Articles 2 and 13: inefficient investigation into the death of the applicant’s daughter (which she considers to be the result of a crime, while the authorities view it as suicide), notably the insufficient investigative measures taken to establish the circumstances of that death, the late initiation of the criminal investigation (one year and three months after the fact) and the failure to keep her informed of the course of the investigation. 2 Popova, no. 29162/14 27 March 2014 Article 2: inefficient investigation into the murder of the applicant’s daughter, notably the failure to take a number of investigative actions that were natural in such cases; the protraction of the investigation (which had already lasted for almost 11 years by the time of lodging the application); the failure to take sufficient action in order to find the whereabouts of the presumed perpetrator, whose identity was known to the police and who absconded; the failure to investigate the role of another person, who allegedly conspired with the perpetrator; and the failure to keep the applicant informed of the course of the investigation. She also complains of a breach of Article 6 § 1 due to the excessive length of the civil proceedings in which she claimed compensation for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. 3 Lungu, no. 68490/14 8 October 2014 Articles 2 and 8: very mild initial qualification of the perpetrators’ actions (prison term suspended for two years) allowed them to flee the country – impunity; insufficient measures taken to find their current whereabouts.