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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEA8A7CD0 { width:101.74%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s37F19E47 { width:4.2%; 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 } .s9FA385D8 { width:26.22%; 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sD11F2E51 { width:19.46%; 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 } .sFB8EDFBC { width:50.12%; 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 } .s2984B644 { width:4.2%; 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 } .s50E8DAD2 { width:26.22%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s73E16F { width:19.46%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s69E18278 { width:50.12%; 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 } .sAEC71163 { width:4.2%; 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 } .s92BD6EDC { width:26.22%; 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 } .sB316D67F { width:19.46%; 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 } .s410824F8 { width:50.12%; 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. 44592/16 Ala BOBOC and Others against the Republic of Moldova and 6 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE All the applications mentioned above concern alleged ill-treatment or excessive use of force committed by State agents or with their alleged approval, as well as the allegedly insufficient investigation into the complaints about such ill-treatment or excessive use of force (this latter respect does not concern application no. 24737/15). Some raise additional issues under Articles 2 (concerning the death of a person during the public unrest in April 2009), 3 (conditions of detention and medical treatment of detainees) and 5 § 3 (reasons for extending detention pending trial), as shown in the included Appendix. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In each application listed above, has there been a violation of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, was each applicant (or their relative, in the case of Mr Boboc’s parents and wife) subjected to ill ‑ treatment or excessive use of force by State agents (see, among many other authorities, Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015 and Ciorap v.   the   Republic of Moldova (no. 5) , no. 7232/07, §§   43-47 and 64, 15 March 2016)?   2.     In each application listed above (except application no. 24737/15), has an effective investigation, within the meaning of Article 3, been carried out in respect of the complaints about ill-treatment or excessive use of force (see, for instance, Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 103-107, ECHR 2016)?   3.     In application no. 44592/16, has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to the excessive use of force against the applicants’ son/husband? Has there been an effective investigation into that death (see, for instance, Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-182, 14 April 2015)? Can the applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of Article 2?   4.     In applications nos. 4670/16, 11272/16 and 33968/16, did each applicant receive medical treatment while in detention, as required by his condition (see, for instance, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 178, ECHR 2016)?   5.     Have the applicants in applications nos. 12591/15, 11272/16 and 33968/16 been detained in conditions incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§ 96-141, ECHR 2016 and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no.   16483/12, § 158-167, ECHR 2016 (extracts))? Did the applicant in application no. 11272/16 have an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of this complaint under Article 3 (see Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 11353/06, §§ 123-139, 15   September 2015)?   6.     Has there been a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in application no. 4670/16 as a result of the repeated extensions of the applicant’s detention pending trial, considering his inability to move (see, for instance, Sarban v. Moldova , no. 3456/05, §§ 92-104, 4 October 2005)?   APPENDIX     Name and application no.   Date of introduction Complaints 1. Boboc and others, no. 44592/16 22 July 2016 Article 2 – death of V.B. (the applicants’ son/husband) at the hands of the police and insufficient investigation Article 3 – V.B.’s ill-treatment during the events and insufficient investigation; impunity 2. Levinte, no. 12591/15 28 February 2015 Article 3 – ill-treatment during arrest and insufficient compensation. 3. Cretu, no. 24737/15 7 May 2015 Article 3 – ill-treatment after the public unrest in April 2009 and insufficient investigation thereof 4. Canuda, no. 4670/16 11 January 2016 Article 3 - ill-treatment during arrest and insufficient investigation; insufficient medical treatment and inhuman conditions of detention Article 5 § 3 – insufficient reasons for extending detention pending trial, in view of the applicant’s disability 5. Nitu, no. 11272/16 21 February 2016 Article 3 – excessive use of force against a vulnerable detainee; absence of specialised (psychiatric) medical treatment so as to prevent the applicant from being subjected to violence from the prison guards and cellmates; inhuman conditions of detention Article 13 – absence of a remedy in respect of conditions of detention 6. Povestca, no. 33968/16 7 September 2016 Article 3 – ill-treatment during arrest and insufficient investigation 7. Matveev, no. 36601/16 18 June 2016 Article 3 – ill-treatment during arrest and insufficient investigation