ECtHR Cases April–June 2021
| DOI | 10.1177/20322844221074560 |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Updates |
ECHR Update
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 13(1) 100–115
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844221074560
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
ECtHR Cases April–June 2021
Ben Wild
Senior Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service
Article 2
Scripnic v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 63789/13)
The applicants,Sergiu Scripnicand Maia Scripnic,are two Moldovan nationalswho were born in 1974
and 1977, respectively. They are husband and wife and live in Ciorescu (Republic of Moldova). The
case concerned an alleged case of medical negligence resulting in the death of a new-born child.
In 2003, Maia Scripnic was admitted to the maternity ward of a hospital in Chis
¸in˘
au. There she
gave birth to a baby girl who died the day after the birth. The couple filed a complaint the same year,
asking the prosecutor’soffice to establish the criminal responsibility of those allegedly involved in
their daughter’s death. In 2009, a doctor was indicted. Then, in the same year, a court discontinued
the criminal proceedings against this doctor because his criminal liability had become time-barred.
This judgment became final.
In 2010, the applicants also brought a civil action for damages against the doctor in question and
the hospital. In 2011, a court partly upheld their action, awarding them approximately EUR 3,700
for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. In 2012, the Court of Appeal awarded them,
in addition, a sum corresponding to the costs of the child’s burial and upheld the rest of the
firstinstance judgment. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld this ruling.
Relying in substance on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants
alleged that they had not obtained appropriate relief in relation to their daughter’s death, which they
claim had been caused by medical negligence.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2
Just satisfaction. Non-pecuniary damage 15 000 euros (EUR) (to the applicants jointly)
Penati v. Italy (application no. 44166/15)
The applicant, Antonella Penati, is an Italian national who was born in 1963. She lives in San
Donato Milanese. The case concerned the murder of an eight-year-old child by his father. Relying
on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicant alleged that the national
authorities had breached their positive obligation under that provision by omitting to take all the
necessary measures to protect the life of her child.
Outcome
No violation of Article 2
Other Article 2 Cases from April–June 2021
Bis
¸ar Ayhan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42329/11 and 47319 /11)
Article 3
E.G. v. Republic of Moldova (application no. 37882/13)
The case concerned a sexual assault on the applicant in February 2008, and in particular the failure
to enforce the sentence imposed on one of her three attackers. The offender in question had been
granted an amnesty while the authorities were still looking for him and he had never served his
sentence. The benefit of this amnesty had subsequently been annulled. However, the period of about
one year during which he had benefited from the amnesty had enabled him to leave Moldova,
shortly before the last annulment decision.
The Court found that the sexual assault on the applicant had constituted a serious breach of her
right to protection from bodily harm and mental distress. The measures taken by the State for the
enforcement of the offender’s sentence had not been sufficient in the light of its obligation to enforce
criminal sentences handed down against the perpetrators of sexual assaults. The granting of the
amnesty and the authorities’failure to enforce the sentence had been incompatible with the positive
obligations of the Moldovan State under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
Outcome
Violation of Article 3
Just satisfaction. The Republic of Moldova to pay the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,820 in respect of costs and expenses.
Barovov v. Russia (no. 9183/09)
The applicant, Vadim Kurbanovich Barovov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives
in Irkutsk (Russia). The case concerns the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the ap-
plicant’s ill-treatment in police custody during questioning for allegedly handling a counterfeit
banknote. The injuries suffered by the applicant included rupture of the spleen, internal bleeding, rib
fractures, brain injury, concussion and severe bruising.
After almost 12 years, a preliminary investigation and criminal proceedings by the authorities ended
with the conviction of two police officers for havingsubjected the applicant to ill-treatment. However, they
were exempted from serving their sentences under one applicable provision of the Criminal Code due to
expiration of the ten-year statutory time-limit, and received suspended terms of imprisonment under
another applicable provision of the Criminal Code. No disciplinary measures were taken against them.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the
applicant complains that the investigation into his ill-treatment in police custody was not effective
and that he did not have an effective criminal-law remedy in regard to his allegations of torture by
Wild 101
To continue reading
Request your trial