Allein im vergangenen Jahr wurden Entschädigungen in Höhe von 2,6 Millionen Euro zugesprochen
Moldawien zahlte seit 1997 in Fällen, in denen es vom EGMR verurteilt wurde, 22 Millionen Euro Schadensersatz
Die Republik Moldau wurde durch Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) in den Jahren 1997-2021 zu fast 22 Millionen Euro Schadensersatz verpflichtet. Allein im vergangenen Jahr belief sich der Schaden auf 2,6 Millionen Euro, und 2 Millionen dieser Summe wurden im Fall der Zuckerfabrik Ghindești zugesprochen, wie eine Analysenotiz des Legal Resources Center aus Moldawien zeigt.
In a news conference at IPN, the Center’s head Vladislav Gribincea said that the most frequent violations of the European Convention on Human Rights since 1997 refer to the right to a fair trial, prohibition of torture, right to liberty and security, right to an effective remedy, right to the respect for private and family life and right to property.
“They speak a lot about the payment of damages awarded by the ECHR for human rights violations from the pockets of judges and prosecutors. According to the Venice Commission, the judges can respond with own property only for inexcusable mistakes, if they consciously ignore provisions of the ECHR and the Court’s case law,” stated Vladislav Gribincea.
He noted that the ECHR last year passed 108 judgments in Moldovan cases. This is the highest figure in Moldova’s history. Such a figure is due to the fact that the Moldovan judge who is taking part in the examination of cases was to be replaced in December 2021 and the Court probably wanted to finish the examination of applications in which the judge was involved at the advanced examination stage.
Thirteen of the 108 judgments referred to the Transnistrian region, namely to the violation of human rights committed not by Moldova, but by the Russian Federation. Also, 69 violations were attributed to Moldova and 16 of these were violations of the right to a fair trial. Other violations referred to the non-enforcement of court judgments within a reasonable time. This shows that the Moldovan judges do not award adequate damages for the nonfulfillment of the obligation to execute court decisions on time. Many of the judgments concerned the relations between two private sides.
Among the most important ECHR judgments from legal viewpoint is the one in the case of Talambuța and Iașcinina v. the Republic of Moldova, which concerns the non-provision of appropriate medical assistance to detainees who suffered from chronic diseases. The ECHR held that the penitentiary health system didn’t act appropriately. Among other such cases is the case of Mătăsaru, who was arrested for staging an extravagant protest and was unjustifiably fined, and the case of Petrenco and others, who were arrested and investigated after protesting in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office.