{"id":5846,"date":"2020-12-12T17:49:00","date_gmt":"2020-12-12T15:49:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zdg.md\/en\/?p=5846"},"modified":"2020-12-15T10:53:52","modified_gmt":"2020-12-15T08:53:52","slug":"the-major-cases-lost-by-moldova-at-the-ecthr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zdg.md\/en\/the-major-cases-lost-by-moldova-at-the-ecthr\/","title":{"rendered":"The Major Cases Lost by Moldova at the ECtHR"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The right to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty and security are just some of the most often violated rights in Moldova, according to a summary of the Center for Legal Resources in Moldova. According to the institution, the five most resonant cases that Moldova has lost at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are the cases: Ila\u0219cu and others versus Moldova and Russia, Becciev versus Moldova, \u0218erban versus Moldova, Iordache, and others versus Moldova, Ozdil and others versus Moldova.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ILA\u015eCU and others 3 c. MOLDOVA and RUSSIA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ilie Ila\u0219cu, Alexandru Le\u015fco, Andrei Ivan\u0163oc, and Tudor Petrov-Popa filed a petition to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) against Moldova and Russia, which refers to their illegal detention from the so-called authorities in the breakaway Transnistrian region. The plaintiffs claimed that they were illegally detained, without a fair trial, and were deprived of their property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They also complained about the detention conditions saying that Moldovan authorities were responsible for violating their rights because no steps had been taken to end these actions. The complainants went also against Russia, because the region de-facto is under its control, with stationed Russian troops and military equipment on the territory. The applicants also stated that Moldova and Russia had prevented the exercise of their right to submit an individual application to the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ECtHR found a violation of the European Convention, the prohibition of torture. The Court also found that the deprivation of liberty was “against the law” and that Moldova restricted their right to apply to the ECtHR. The Court found that Russia restricted their rights too, by exerting pressure on Moldova through diplomatic channels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prosecutors accused of theft and detained Constantin Becciev, the former director of the Enterprise “Ap\u0103-Canal”. The Court motivated that \u201cthe suspect has reached the age at which he can be prosecuted, he is suspected of serious crime, he can evade the criminal prosecution and can influence witnesses and the uncovering of the truth\u201d. He appealed to the ECtHR, arguing that the courts had not given any reason to support their decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ECtHR ruled that Becciev’s right to liberty and security had been violated and that the domestic courts had no sufficient grounds to justify the arrest. Also, the violation of the prohibition of torture, by failing to ensure optimal conditions of detention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n