Communicated on 18 November 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 18521/13 Eugen DUCA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 21 February 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Evghenii Duca , is a Moldovan national who was born in 1991 and lives in Orhei . He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Duca .

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

On 12 September 2010 at around 3 a.m. the applicant had just come out of a disco club in a village in Orhei when he was attacked and beaten by an unknown person. According to the applicant, S. and G., who were with the unknown person at the time, witnessed the incident together with some other individuals. The following day at around 8.43 p.m. the perpetrator called the applicant on his mobile telephone and threatened him with violence if he complained to the police. The perpetrator ’ s telephone number was withheld.

On 15 September 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint in respect of the unidentified perpetrator.

The police interviewed the applicant and several witnesses. S. stated that he did not know G., that at the time in question he had been in an advanced state of intoxication, and that he had not witnessed any incident. C. stated that she had seen the perpetrator and offered a detailed description of him. G. was later questioned and stated that he knew S. and had talked to him at the club on the night in question but that he had not witnessed any incident.

On 21 September 2010 a medical report was drawn up, based on the applicant ’ s medical records, which stated that the applicant had a first ‑ degree contusion of the right eye and of the nose, an abrasion on the head, an ecchymosis around the right eye, and abrasions on both lips. The report concluded that the injuries did not pose a threat to the applicant ’ s health and could have been caused in the circumstances described.

In the meantime, on 20 September 2010 the police had suspended the investigation pending identification of the perpetrator. The applicant appealed. On 5 October 2010 the Orhei prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered further investigation. The police twice refused to institute criminal proceedings because the facts revealed the elements of an administrative offence and not of a crime. Those decisions were quashed by the prosecutor.

On 21 March 2011 a criminal investigation was initiated on the basis of a disruption of public order ( huliganism ) by two or more persons. On 18 May 2011 the applicant was acknowledged as a victim.

On 23 May 2011 the applicant complained that no investigative actions had been carried out since the investigation had been initiated and reiterated that the unidentified perpetrator had telephoned and threatened him the day after the incident. It does not appear that he received any reply.

On 27 June 2011 the police proposed the termination of the investigation because no elements of a crime had been identified. However, on 8 July 2011 the Orhei prosecutor suspended the investigation until the perpetrator could be identified. The app licant appealed. On 11 November 2011 the hierarchically superior prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered all witnesses to be interviewed, and in particular E., who, according to the applicant, would be able to identify the perpetrator.

Without any knowledge about the evolution of the investigation, the applicant repeatedly complained to the Orhei investigating judge about the undue delay in the investigation and the inaction of the investigating authority in respect of identifying the caller ID of the perpetrator. His complaints were rejected until 16 March 2012, when the Orhei investigating judge accepted his complaint and ordered the prosecutor to identify the caller ID and the person who had calle d the applicant on 13 September 2010. He also ordered him to interview E. about the events, to cross-examine S. and G. and to produce a visual likeness of the perpetrator in accordance with the description provided by the witnesses.

On 17 July 2012 the applicant requested information from the prosecutor concerning the investigation. No reply was forthcoming. On 3 September 2012 the applicant complained about the inactivity of the investigating authority. On 10 August 2012 the Orhei prosecutor ’ s office replied that in order to prevent further unnecessary delays, the case had been transferred to a different investigating officer. The applicant complained to the investigating judge about the lack of detail in the prosecutor ’ s reply. On 13 September 2012 the Orhei investigating judge ordered the prosecutor to provide the applicant with information about the actions undertaken in compliance with the order of 16 March 2012.

On 18 January 2013 the applicant again sought information about the investigation. On 28 January 2013 he complained to the Orhei investigating judge about the prosecutor ’ s failure to reply. He subsequently received the prosecutor ’ s reply dated 24 January 2013. According to it, an inquiry about the caller ID had been made, but for technical reasons the mobile telephone operator had been unable to provide the requested information. The witnesses had been interviewed repeatedly but a likeness of the perpetrator could not be produced because the witnesses could no longer remember what he looked like. It had been impossible to cross-examine S. and G. because S. had left the country on 3 October 2012. The applicant complained that the prosecutor ’ s actions were insufficient and thus illegal. On 22 February 2013 the Orhei investigating judge dismissed his complaint as ill-founded.

On 5 February 2013 the applicant asked the prosecutor why the mobile telephone operator had been unable to provide the information about the perpetrator ’ s caller ID. In the absence of a reply, on 8 April 2013 the applicant submitted a similar complaint to the Orhei investigating judge. In court the prosecutor stated that the investigation had been initiated five months after the incident but that the request for that information had not been authorised until 2012, and under domestic law the mobile telephone operators were obliged to keep such information for only 13 months. On 22 April 2013 the Orhei investigating judge accepted the applicant ’ s complaint and found that the prosecutor had unduly delayed the investigation.

In May 2013 the applicant obtained from the prosecutor the mobile telephone operator ’ s reply, stating that it had been impossible in 2013 to provide information about calls made in 2010 because such information was kept for one year only.

On 17 July 2013 the prosecutor suspended the criminal investigation pending identification of the perpetrator. The applicant appealed and, on 3 December 2013, the Orhei investigating judge quashed the decision and ordered an additional investigation of the case.

On 13 February 2014 the applicant requested information about the investigation. No reply was forthcoming. On 3 and 18 March 2014 the applicant complained about the inaction of the investigating officers. On 18 March 2014 his complaint was rejected by the Orhei prosecutor as ill ‑ founded.

On the same day the applicant was informed that on 14 March 2014 the investigation had been suspended for the same reasons as before. The applicant appealed. On 15 May 2014 the Orhei investigating judge dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the decision to suspend the investigation. That decision was final.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in respect of his complaint about injuries inflicted by a private individual.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the States ’ positive obligation under Article 3 to provide procedural protection from ill-treatment even when inflicted by private persons (see Beganović v. Croatia , no. 46423/06 , § 71, 25 June 2009) , was the investigation adequate for the purposes of Article 3?