SECOND SECTION

CASE OF TALAMBUŢA AND IAȘCININA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

(Applications nos. 23151/09 and 30762/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 December 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Talambuţa ans Iaşcinina v. the Republic of Moldova,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Carlo Ranzoni, President, Valeriu Griţco, Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 23151/09 and 30762/13) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Moldovan nationals, Mr Leonid Talambuţa and Ms Alla Iașcinina (“the applicants”), on 19 March 2009 and 15 April 2013, respectively;

the decision to give notice to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in both applications and of the complaints under Article 6 § 2 and 13 of the Convention in application no. 23151/09 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the decision from 9 April 2019 to declare inadmissible the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning material conditions of detention in application no. 23151/09;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns the lack of or inadequate medical care in detention. The second applicant also complains about the absence of an adequate diet for her medical condition. Both applicants complain of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The first applicant also complains about the absence of an effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and of a violation of his right to presumption of innocence.

THE FACTS

2. The applicants were born in 1954 and 1958 and live in Chișinău and in Bălți, respectively. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Bosîi and Mr P. Zamfir, lawyers practising in Chișinău.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

5. The first applicant was arrested on 24 October 2008 on charges of trading in influence. He was detained in the temporary detention facility (“IDP”) of the Department of Operative Services of the Ministry of Interior.

6 . On 24 and 27 October 2008, when interviewed in the course of proceedings, the applicant declined making statements owing to his poor state of health, namely serious headache and pain in his left-ear caused by otitis for which he was undergoing treatment just before his arrest. He informed the authorities that he needed medical assistance.

7 . On 27 October 2008 the Buiucani District Court authorised the applicant’s detention on remand for ten days, starting from 24 October 2008. The prosecutor argued that the applicant should be detained because he had already been “caught in flagrante delicto in 2001 for receiving bribe and had not drawn conclusions from that, continuing the criminal activity”. The applicant complained before the court that he had been denied medical assistance since his arrest although he had lost hearing in his left ear. He submitted a medical certificate, issued on 27 October 2008, confirming that three days earlier he had been diagnosed with acute otitis.

8. The applicant appealed against the decision arguing that the 2001 proceedings had been discontinued for lack of criminal act. On 30 October 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision and relied, among others, on the applicant’s “personality, who [had been] caught in flagrante delicto in 2001 for the same type of crime”.

9. According to the applicant, on 1 November 2008, his spouse brought medication for his otitis but the parcel was refused by the IDP administration.

10 . The applicant was released from the IDP on 3 November 2008, when the Buiucani District Court ordered his home arrest. The court took into consideration the “substantial aggravation” of the applicant’s state of health since his arrest. Subsequently, on 28 November 2008 the applicant was released under judicial control and the court relied, among others, on the worsening of his health condition while in the IDP and need for treatment outside his home.

11. On 14 November 2008 the applicant was examined by an otolaryngologist who confirmed the diagnosis “latent catarrhal otitis of the left ear” and prescribed antibiotic treatment.

12 . On 30 March 2016 the applicant was finally acquitted.

13 . The second applicant was arrested on remand on 17 January 2012 on charges of trafficking in human beings. She was detained in prison no. 11 in Bălți.

14 . Upon her arrival in prison no. 11 a medical examination was carried out and the doctor diagnosed that the applicant was suffering from: “class 2 arterial hypertension high risk, class 1 heart failure (NYHA classification), diabetes mellitus non-insulin dependent type 2 ?”. The doctor recommended treatment for hypertension, monitoring of the glucose in her blood and of her blood pressure in dynamic.

15. According to the copy of the medical file submitted by the Government, the applicant received treatment for hypertension from February to July 2012. The file does not contain any record of anti-diabetic treatment and monitoring of blood glucose for the same period.

16. On 16 August 2012 a medical committee examined the applicant and concluded that she was suffering from “class 3 arterial hypertension, major vital risk, diabetes mellitus type II undercompensated, pre-proliferative diabetic retinopathy.” The committee recommended the applicant’s transfer to the Prison Hospital Pruncul for additional medical investigations and examination by an endocrinologist. By a handwritten note dated 24 August 2012 the applicant refused the transfer arguing that she had a court hearing scheduled for 3 September 2012.

17 . On 20 August 2012 the applicant was prescribed anti-diabetic treatment (Glibomet), which she continued to administer throughout her detention.

18 . According to a medical certificate submitted by the applicant, dated 12 November 2012, she had been examined on that date by the prison doctor who confirmed the diagnosis: “Diabetes mellitus type I insulin dependent, class 2-3 arterial hypertension with high risk, hypertension crisis stopped (2012)”.

19 . On 22 February 2013 an endocrinologist examined the applicant confirming her diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type II non-insulin dependent undercompensated and recommended continued treatment with Glibomet “under glucose monitoring” and a special diabetic diet (diet no. 9).

20. On 12 August 2013, by a handwritten note, the applicant refused the transfer to the prison hospital arguing that she had already consulted doctors and underwent necessary tests at her own expense.

21 . The medical file submitted by the Government contains records of seventeen medical consultations during the applicant’s twenty months of detention, mostly for her hypertension: once in January 2012, on three occasions in September 2012, once in October 2012, twice in November 2012, twice in February 2013 (including an examination by an endocrinologist and a generalist), twice in March 2013, twice in April 2013, once in May, June, July, and August 2013 (ophthalmologist, cardiologist). Out of these seventeen examinations, on three occasions the records reiterated the applicant’s diagnosis “Diabetes mellitus type II undercompensated non-insulin dependent.”

22 . The medical file contains records of blood glucose measurements on 20 August 2012, 14 September 2012, 22 February 2013, 29 April 2013, 23 May 2013, 6 June 2013, and on an undecipherable date in August 2013. The applicant’s blood pressure was monitored almost daily.

25 . The applicant repeatedly complained about the insufficient medical assistance and the lack of adequate diet for her diabetes.

26. On 27 July 2012 the Bălți prosecutor’s office replied:

“[I]n June 2012 the Bălți prosecutor’s office and the Prosecutor General’s Office conducted an investigation [into your complaint concerning] detention conditions in prison no. 11 in Bălți. The prosecutors have found inappropriate the detention conditions for persons diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (lack of adequate food and of medical assistance), which violate the rights of detainees. Based on these conclusions, on 10 July 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office has requested the Ministry of Justice to immediately adopt measures to remove the deficiencies of detention conditions in prison no. 11 in Bălți.”

27 . On 6 August 2012 the Department of Penitentiary Institutions (“DPI”) replied:

“[Following] your complaint from 13 July 2012 ...[i]t has been found that you are under medical surveillance in prison no. 11 with the diagnosis: “Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus” and receive regular medical treatment for this medical condition, in particular Glibomet. The glucose concentration in your blood is periodically checked.

All detainees in penitentiary institutions are provided with food according to the Government Decree no. 609 of 29.05.2006 ..., approved jointly with the Ministry of Health. This decree does not provide for any special diet for inmates diagnosed with diabetes.

... The Ministry of Justice has requested the Ministry of Health to improve the menu and to amend the Government Decree.

Your health condition is considered as stable. In case your health condition worsens, you will be provided with medical assistance.”

28. On 5 October 2012 the DPI replied, inter alia :

“[Following] your complaint from 6 September 2012 ...[i]t has been found that you ... are receiving regular medical treatment..., in particular Glibomet, which you have received the last time on 12 September 2012.

The glucose concentration in your blood was checked on 9 August 2012, 15 August 2012, 20 August 2012, and 10 September 2012. According to the clinical protocol of the Ministry of Health, the patient can independently check the glucose concentration 3-4 times per day, using his/her personal glucometer.”

29 . On 30 October and 9 November 2012 the DPI replied, inter alia :

“After you were seen by qualified doctors, a diagnosis was established according to which you were prescribed in-patient medical care in the penitentiary hospital, which you have refused. You have been prescribed outpatient treatment.”

30 . After her release from detention the applicant was hospitalised from 26 November to 3 December 2013. The diagnosis at discharge indicated “class 3 arterial hypertension with additional very high risk. Class 3 heart failure (NYHA classification). Diabetes mellitus type II insulin dependent, serious decompensated form. ”

31 . On 11 December 2013 an endocrinologist consulted the applicant and concluded that her diabetes mellitus had evolved into a serious and unbalanced form which required insulin treatment twice per day.

32. On 12 December 2013 the applicant was acknowledged as disabled with 30% work capacity.

RELEVANT MATERIALS

33 . The relevant parts of the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) on its visit to Moldova in the IDP of the Department of Operative Services of the Ministry of Interior between 14 and 24 September 2007 (CPT/Inf (2008) 39) read as follows (unofficial translation):

“22. Paragraph 15 has already referred to the employment of feldshers in all IDPs of the country ... The persons admitted to the IDPs during the week were generally seen by a feldsher shortly after their arrival; however, this was not always the case of those who arrived during the weekend (for example, delays of two to three days have been confirmed)...

31. ... [The] CPT calls on Moldovan authorities to review the relevant legal provisions and to provide specific instructions as to guarantee remanded persons the right to be examined by a doctor from the very start of their detention ... [T]hese instructions should include in particular that :

- any request made by a detainee to be seen by a doctor should to be satisfied without delay ; it is not for the police staff to filter these requests ;

- the results of each examination, as well as all relevant statements made by the detainee and the doctor’s conclusions, should be recorded by the doctor and made available to the concerned person and to his or her lawyer;

- the exercise of the right of access to a doctor should be recorded in the remand files ...”

34 . The Moldovan Government Decree no. 609 from 29 May 2006 on the minimal daily diet and hygiene products for detainees provides for a special diet for detainees with tuberculosis, for pregnant and breastfeeding detainees, for juvenile detainees, and for ill and disabled detainees. There are no provisions in respect of detainees with diabetes mellitus.

35. The relevant parts of the report of the Moldovan Council for the Prevention of Torture (the national preventative mechanism established since 2016 under the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture) on its visit to Prison Hospital no. 16 - Pruncul between 22 and 23 July 2019 read as follows (unofficial translation):

“... The majority of [diabetes mellitus] patients are consulted by an ophthalmologist and an endocrinologist from the civil sector based on a service contract concluded with the National Administration of Prisons. ...

XI. FINDINGS:

6. Detainees do not have the status of insured person in the system of medical insurance and are not entitled to the same services as the general public nor to the services provided in most National Programmes (diabetes mellitus, cardio-vascular diseases, cancer, etc.)...”

36 . At its 1406th meeting, on 7-9 June 2021, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted a decision concerning the execution of Court judgments revealing a violation due to poor conditions of detention and the lack of access to adequate medical care while in detention, as well as the absence of effective domestic remedies in both respects, in the Republic of Moldova, which reads as follows:

“The Deputies,

... 2. underlined the importance of ensuring that the practical application of the domestic remedies comply with the Convention requirements, ... and invited the authorities to provide information on the application of preventive remedy and updated statistical data on the application of the compensatory remedy; ...

7. invited the authorities to provide, by 31 March 2022, information also on the following issues:

- application of the preventive and compensatory remedy in cases of allegedly inadequate medical care in detention...”

THE LAW

37. In view of similar complaints on material conditions of detention, on 9 April 2019 the Court decided to join application no. 23151/09 with eleven other applications (see Tălămbuță and others v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), nos. 23151/09 and 11 other applications, § 12, 9 April 2019) and declared the applications partially inadmissible.

38. In view of similar complaints on insufficient medical care in detention, the Court now considers that it is necessary to disjoin application no. 23151/09 from those applications and to examine it jointly with application no. 30762/13 in a single judgment.

39. The applicants complained that they had not been provided with medical assistance or with adequate medical assistance and diet while in detention, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

40. The Government submitted that, by failing to claim compensation for the alleged damage caused by the lack of adequate medical care, the second applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. They submitted a summary of four cases examined by the domestic courts in which a detainee (Mr N.I. ) had obtained compensation for violations of Article 3 of the Convention. They also pointed to an explanatory decision of the Supreme Court of Justice from 24 December 2012 concerning the compensatory remedy introduced for violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Convention.

41. The second applicant argued that she had had no effective remedies in respect of her complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

42 . The Court found violations of Article 13 of the Convention in I.D. v. Moldova (no. 47203/06, § 50, 30 November 2010) and in Valentin Baştovoi v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 40614/14, §§ 18 and 29, 28 November 2017) on account of the lack of effective remedies in Moldova for inadequate detention conditions, including inadequate medical care in detention. It also notes that the remedy suggested by the Government does not have a preventive effect in the sense of improving the medical assistance provided to the applicants in the course of detention, but only a compensatory effect (see, for instance, Holomiov v. Moldova , no. 30649/05, § 107, 7 November 2006). It is not therefore effective in cases where people are still detained in such conditions at the time of lodging their application with the Court (see, for instance, Oprea v. Moldova , no. 38055/06, § 33, 21 December 2010). In the present case, the second applicant was in detention at the time when she lodged her application. The Court therefore rejects the Government’s objection.

43. The Court notes that these complaints in respect of both applicants are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.

44. The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-40, 23 March 2016, with further references therein).

45. The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the State to protect the physical integrity of persons deprived of their liberty. In particular, the Court considers that the obligation of the national authorities to ensure the health and general well-being of an inmate implies, inter alia , the obligation to provide him or her with proper nourishment (see Ebedin Abi v. Turkey , no. 10839/09, § 30, 13 March 2018).

46. The first applicant argued that he had been denied medical assistance while in detention and had not been allowed to receive medication from his family. As a result, he experienced extreme pain, had a temporary loss of hearing and his ear infection from acute became chronic.

47. The Government submitted that the case was similar to Gorea v. Moldova (no. 21984/05, 17 July 2007), because of the short duration of the detention and of the unsubstantiated need for medical assistance. They argued that the medical certificates submitted by the applicant did not substantiate any significant worsening of the applicant’s health condition and contended that the severity of the treatment did not reach the threshold of Article 3 of the Convention.

48. The Court observes that the applicant complained of lack of medical assistance during ten days of his detention in the IDP mostly in relation to his ear infection. The Court considers that the case differs in several important ways from the circumstances in the case of Gorea. Although the duration was similar (fourteen days in Gorea ), Mr Gorea’s failure to complain about his conditions of detention was an important element in dismissing his complaint. The applicant in the present case, complained to the public prosecutor and to the Buiucani District Court but failed to obtain any response to his complaints, let alone any improvement in his conditions of detention. It was only when he was brought again before the Buiucani District Court for an extension of the detention order that the applicant had been heard and allowed to leave the IDP and to remain under home arrest (see paragraphs 6, 7 and 10).

49. The Court takes note that the Government did not submit the applicant’s medical file to confirm that his health condition was monitored when he entered and left the IDP and that medical assistance had been provided when necessary.

50. In the absence of any explanation from the Government, the Court is unable to establish whether their failure is a product of the domestic authorities’ inability to keep a comprehensive record concerning the applicant’s state of health and the treatment he received (see paragraph 33 above) or their unwillingness to disclose the contents of the applicant’s medical record which might contain information capable of corroborating the allegations put forward by the applicant. Irrespective of the reasons for that failure, the Court is prepared to draw inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant’s allegations and the Government’s conduct in the instant case (see Bekirski v. Bulgaria , no. 71420/01, § 115, 2 September 2010, with further references, and Imakayeva v. Russia , no. 7615/02, § 124, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts)).

51. On the basis of all the material placed before it and taking into account the Government’s failure to provide a copy of the applicant’s medical file covering the period of his detention, the Court accepts the applicant’s argument that he was not provided with adequate medical assistance while in the IDP when his health condition required such care. The Court finds that such absence of care combined with the pain and the temporary loss of hearing in his left ear must have caused the applicant distress surpassing the inevitable degree of suffering inherent to imprisonment.

52. The Court finds therefore that the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with medical care amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

53. The second applicant argued that, while in detention, she had not been provided with adequate medical assistance and specific diet for her health condition (diabetes mellitus). As a result, her diabetes and heart condition worsened. She refused to be transferred to the prison hospital because there was no endocrinologist in this medical structure and, in any case, a doctor from a civil hospital needed to be invited at her own expense, which she did in prison no. 11. Relying on a certificate dated 12 November 2012, she argued that her condition required insulin treatment, which she did not receive.

54. The Government submitted the applicant’s medical file in prison and contended that she had been regularly examined by doctors, including specialist doctors like an endocrinologist, had regularly received anti-diabetic (Glibomet) and anti-hypertension medication, and had her blood glucose measured at certain intervals of time. All her requests for medical assistance had been answered within 30 minutes and were duly recorded in the medical file. They noted that on two occasions the applicant refused transfer to the prison hospital when this had been recommended by a doctor and often refused prescribed treatment. According to the Government, the applicant’s condition did not require insulin treatment and she had never complained to the administration of prison no. 11 about the inadequacy of the medical assistance and of the diet.

55. From the onset the Court notes that upon her arrival at prison no. 11 the applicant had already been diagnosed with heart failure, hypertension and potential diabetes (see paragraph 14).

56. A medical committee confirmed that the applicant suffered from diabetes mellitus type II in August 2012 (see paragraph 16). While the applicant appears to have received treatment for hypertension immediately after her placement in detention, the Court was not presented with evidence that she had been prescribed and administered anti-diabetic treatment before July or August 2012 (see paragraphs 17 and 27). There is also no record of a further medical consultation before August 2012 in respect of her diabetes mellitus. Therefore, there was a delay of at least seven months before the applicant’s treatment for diabetes was prescribed.

57. In respect of the adequacy of the received treatment, the Court observes that the parties disagree on whether the applicant’s condition required insulin treatment throughout her detention. Except for the medical certificate dated 12 November 2012 (see paragraph 18), there is no other medical opinion before August and December 2013 (see paragraphs 24, 30 and 31) indicating that the applicant’s condition required insulin treatment.

58. However, even assuming that there was no medical prescription for insulin before 20 August 2013, the Court notes that the applicant’s diagnosis on each occasion concluded that her diabetes mellitus was undercompensated, that is to say not managed sufficiently with the chosen treatment (see paragraphs 19 and 21). While the endocrinologist prescribed the anti ‑ diabetic medication to be administered in correlation with a regular monitoring of the blood glucose (see paragraph 19), the applicant’s medical file displays a rather sporadic glucose check-up, as opposed to a fairly regular surveillance of the blood pressure (see paragraph 22).

59. Moreover, the Court observes that, in addition to the anti-diabetic treatment, the applicant was prescribed a special diabetic diet (see paragraph 19), requirement which was not followed by the prison authorities. The Court notes that the applicant complained to the DPI and to the prosecutor’s office about the lack of specialised diet (see paragraphs 25-27). The prosecutor acknowledged the lack of adequate food and the DPI admitted that there were no provisions in the relevant Government decree for a diabetic diet. The Court notes that the situation remains unchanged to the present day (see paragraphs 34 and 34).

60. The authorities did not seek to ascertain whether the food provided to the applicant was suitable and whether the failure to comply with this medically prescribed diet had had any negative effects on her state of health and on the efficiency of the administered anti-diabetic treatment. As special diet is generally essential for the proper management of diabetes mellitus, this aspect alone allows the Court to conclude that the authorities failed to take requisite action to protect the applicant’s health (see Ebedin Abi v. Turkey , cited above, §§ 38 ‑ 45).

61. As regards the complaint concerning the deterioration of the applicant’s health, the Court refers to the decision of the Bălți Court of Appeal which concluded that her state of health was no longer compatible with detention (see paragraph 24). The Court also notes that, after her release, the applicant was in need of insulin treatment (see paragraphs 29-30), that her heart condition worsened (from class 1 it evolved to class 3 heart failure) and that as a result she lost 70% of her work capacity (see paragraph 31).

62. In this connection, the Court concludes that the applicant was provided with a certain medical treatment for her diabetes mellitus, but which, due to its administration with a seven-month delay, without regular correlation with the glucose level in her blood and due to the absence of a special diet, was inefficient in managing the condition (see Demian v. Romania, no. 5614/05, § 54, 27 September 2011).

63. The Court notes that the Government did not dispute the applicant’s contention as to the absence of a specialist doctor in the prison hospital Pruncul and that this information was corroborated by the recent report of the Moldovan Council for the Prevention of Torture (see paragraph 34). For this reason, the Court is not convinced that a transfer to the prison hospital, where the applicant still needed to invite a specialist from a civil hospital, just like in prison no. 11, would have resulted in a better management of her health condition, without the proper monitoring of glucose levels in her blood and a special diet.

64. The Court considers, therefore, that the domestic authorities failed to take the requisite action to protect the applicant’s health and well-being and that therefore they failed to provide her with appropriate conditions of detention compatible with human dignity, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

65. The first applicant complained that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaint concerning lack of medical care in detention as provided in Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

66. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

67. The applicant submitted that no effective remedies existed to contest the absence of medical assistance.

68. The Government argued that there was no need to examine the complaint considering that there had been no arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention.

69. The Court notes that the Government failed to submit evidence as to the existence of any effective domestic remedies (see paragraph 42 above). Moreover, in June 2021 the supervision of the Committee of Ministers on the execution of Court judgments in respect of the Republic of Moldova concerning lack of access to adequate medical care while in detention and the absence of effective domestic remedies in this respect was still ongoing and the respondent Government were invited to submit information as to the application of the preventive and compensatory remedy in such cases (see paragraph 36 above).

70. Accordingly, the Court considers that it has not been shown that effective remedies existed in respect of the applicant’s complaint and, therefore, concludes that there has been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

71. Lastly, the first applicant also complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention about the breach of his right to presumption of innocence. In particular, the applicant submitted that the language used by the Chișinău Court of Appeal to describe his personality implied that in 2001 he had committed a crime although the criminal proceedings had been discontinued in that case for lack of criminal act.

72. The Government argued that the reference to the applicant’s flagrante delicto in 2001 was a statement of suspicion and not of guilt and for this reason it was acceptable.

73. The Court considers that the main issues in the present case have been analysed and that in the circumstances it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Articles 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

74. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

75. The first applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, EUR 100 in respect of pecuniary damage to cover out-of-pocket medical expenses and EUR 560 in respect of costs and expenses. He submitted a receipt for EUR 60 for translation services and a contract for EUR 500 for legal representation.

76. The second applicant claimed EUR 30,000 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses. She submitted a detailed timesheet and a contract with her legal representative.

77. The Government argued that the applicants’ claims were excessive and invited the Court to dismiss them.

78. Ruling on equitable basis, the Court awards the first applicant a global sum of EUR 8,500 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the second applicant EUR 8,500 in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on the applicants.

79. In respect of the costs and expenses, the Court awards the first applicant’s claim in full and the second applicant EUR 1,500.

80. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to the first applicant;

(ii) EUR 8,500 (eight thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to the second applicant;

(iii) EUR 560 (five hundred sixty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to the first applicant;

(iv) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of costs and expenses, to the second applicant;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Carlo Ranzoni Deputy Registrar President