Communicated on 18 December 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 49597/13 Andrei SPINU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 17 July 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrei Sp î nu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in and lives in Cobusca Nouă . He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Malanciuc , a lawyer practising in Chişinău .

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

On 14 February 2007, while working in his employer ’ s vineyard, the applicant was run down by a tractor driven by G., another employee, and had his left ankle fractured. The injuries were qualified as of intermediate severity. The applicant filed a criminal complaint in respect of G. with the Anenii Noi prosecutor ’ s office.

On 28 September 2007 the prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings for lack of criminal elements in G. ’ s actions. He concluded that the injuries had resulted from a labour and not a traffic accident and that the applicant had in fact been responsible for it because, being drunk, he had exposed himself to danger. The applicant appealed. On 17 September 2008 the Anenii Noi investigating judge quashed the prosecutor ’ s decision and ordered the prosecutor to investigate additionally certain circumstances of the case, such as whether the tractor had rear-view mirrors, was insured and was fit for exploitation.

The prosecutor refused to institute proceedings on other three occasions; his refusals were subsequently quashed either by the hierarchically superior prosecutor or by the investigating judge.

On 16 February 2011 the prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings on charges of road traffic violation resulting in injuries of intermediate severity.

On two occasions the prosecutor adopted decisions to terminate the criminal investigation for lack of sufficient evidence to prosecute G. However, the decisions were subsequently quashed either by the hierarchically superior prosecutor or by the investigating judge for failure to examine the circumstances of the case as ordered by the investigating judge in 2008.

On 30 April 2013 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation on the same grounds as before. The applicant appealed. Proceedings were pending at the time when the application was submitted.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in respect of his complaint about the injuries inflicted by a private party.

The applicant also complains that he had no effective remedies as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint about the inefficiency of the investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the procedural protection from ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities in the present case effective for the purposes of that Article?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?