Published on 21 October 2024
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 56320/17
Ludmila CATRUC
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 26 July 2017
communicated on 30 September 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged failure of the Moldovan authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accidental death of the applicant’s son.
On 26 July 2014 the applicant’s son, then aged nine, went to a sports field accompanied by his brother and was playing football with other boys when the football gate goal frame, which was not fixed to the ground, fell on him and crushed his head. He was taken to hospital the same day, but died of his injuries twelve days later, on 7 August 2014.
The applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor and on 11 August 2014 a criminal case was opened against local officials on account of negligent performance of their duties (Article 329 of the Criminal Code).
On 15 March 2015 the Criuleni Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal case on the grounds that no one was criminally liable for the death of the applicant’s son. The prosecutor found that the applicant’s son had been seen swinging on the football gate goal frame that ultimately fell onto him, causing a serious head injury that led to his death. The prosecutor explained that, according to a Moldovan Federation of Football note, football gate goal frames were movable to allow multipurpose use of the sports field. The prosecutor also mentioned that there were no standards for the frame to be fixed to the ground and no obligation for the public authority to secure the frame, as it was movable. The prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s son’s death had occurred because of his improper way of playing.
The applicant appealed against that decision and, on 22 May 2015, the Criuleni District Court ordered the reopening of the investigation, considering that not all the factual and legal aspects of the case had been clarified. On 9 March 2016 the Criuleni Prosecutions Office again discontinued the case as no elements of a criminal offence had been established. The applicant appealed against the decision, arguing that it was not substantially different from the first one, as no further investigative measures had been taken. She also mentioned the public administration’s responsibility to publish the general safety rules on the sports field. On 12 July 2016 the hierarchically higher prosecutor reopened the case and referred it for further investigation.
In the absence of any replies to her numerous requests regarding the progress of the investigation, the applicant sought to have the criminal investigation expedited. Her request was rejected by the investigating judge on 3 April 2017. At the time when the application was lodged, the criminal investigation was still pending.
The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention about the lack of diligence of the investigative authorities, highlighting that the investigation was pending for more than three years without any results. In particular, the applicant points out multiple periods when no measures were taken in relation to the case, conduct which was assessed as improper by the investigating judge and the hierarchically higher prosecutor on two occasions. She also alleges a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention, due to the lack of an effective remedy capable of protecting her from the State’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of her son’s death.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the State’s positive obligations arising in respect of the protection of the right to life (see Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, §§ 28-29, 5 January 2010 and Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 157-71, 25 June 2019), was the criminal investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in the present case in compliance with the procedural obligations provided for by Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, did the available legal remedies taken together, and as provided for in law and applied in practice, secure the legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault?
2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Scripnic v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 63789/13, §§ 31 and 37, 13 April 2021)?