40110/15

FIFTH SECTION CASE OF A.V. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (Application no. 40110/15)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 February 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of A.V. v. the Republic of Moldova, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  María Elósegui, President,  Diana Sârcu,  Sébastien Biancheri, judges, and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 40110/15) 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”) on 6 August 2015 by a Moldovan national, A.V. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1967, lives in Chisinau and was represented by Mr R. Zadoinov, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr D. Obadă; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 15 January 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The case concerns the allegedly ineffective investigation into the sexual assault and death of A., the applicant’s daughter. The applicant complained of a violation of her rights under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. 2.  On 2 November 2013 the applicant’s 15-year-old daughter, A., was found dead after falling from the nineteenth floor of a building. The crime scene report described the position of A.’s body on the ground, her clothes (including her underwear), the presence of bone and brain tissue around the body, and scratches on her hands. The photographs included in the crime scene report show A.’s body lying on the ground with her trousers lowered to her knees and a white belt cut into several pieces. 3.  A forensic medical report dated 5 November 2013 described A.’s trousers as having been torn in the middle and lowered to her knees and the white belt as having been cut in two places. The report confirmed the presence of semen in A.’s vagina. Alcohol was found in her stomach and intestines but not in her blood. No traces of drugs were found in her body. The report concluded that A. had died following the fall and that all injuries on her body, including the scratches on her hands, had resulted from it. Investigation into A.’s death 4.  On 2 December 2013 the prosecutor refused to initiate any investigation into A.’s death. The applicant lodged a complaint against that refusal, and on 16 December 2013 an investigation into suspected coercion or incitement to suicide was ordered by a hierarchically superior prosecutor. 5.  During the investigation a dozen witnesses were questioned, including two witnesses who had seen A. fall, the applicant, A.’s stepfather, a number of A.’s acquaintances and a psychologist. The acquaintances submitted that A. had been missing her deceased father and had had a difficult relationship with her mother, the applicant, who had forbidden her from seeing her boyfriend, V.I. The psychologist submitted that a year earlier the applicant had sought assistance in respect of A.’s aggressive and depressive moods, which had not improved. 6.  During the investigation one of the witnesses, V.I.’s father, produced a letter which was subsequently confirmed as having been handwritten by A. In the letter, A. seemed to be saying farewell because she was seriously ill. It was not established when the letter had been written and given to V.I. 7.  On 19 February 2014 a forensic medical report confirmed that the cause of A.’s death had been the fall. It also confirmed the presence of semen in A.’s body, but found no signs of self-defence. 8.  Samples of saliva and blood were collected from V.I. and I.C. It was concluded after a forensic examination that the semen found in A.’s body could have belonged to V.I. or to V.I. and I.C., but not exclusively to I.C. The report noted that the persons conducting the forensic examination had lacked the equipment necessary to conduct a DNA analysis. 9.  On 31 December 2014 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation into the possibility that A. had been incited to suicide, concluding that A. had been suffering from depression and had taken her own life. The prosecutor referred to the witness statements and expert reports contained in the case file (see paragraphs 5-7 above). 10.  The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, noting that the investigation had not attempted to establish who had had sexual relations with A. shortly before her death. On 18 February 2015 the hierarchically superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint, noting that a criminal investigation into the matter had been initiated on 29 December 2014 (see paragraph 14 below). 11.  The applicant appealed against the prosecutor’s decision, arguing that she had not been properly involved in the investigation into her daughter’s death and that it had not been effective. On 25 May 2015 the Botanica investigating judge rejected the appeal as ill‑founded. 12.  The applicant appealed against the decision of the investigating judge, raising in essence issues similar to those raised in her previous appeals (see paragraphs 10-11 above). On 29 June 2015 the Chișinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as ill-founded. 13.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant complained on several occasions of its ineffectiveness and of never being given the opportunity to submit questions to the experts or to receive regular information about the investigation and copies of material contained in the case file. She also complained of the failure to carry out investigative measures on the basis of information that she had supplied. On several occasions the prosecutor ordered that the applicant be provided with copies of certain documents, explaining that providing her with a copy of the entire case file or copies of certain other documents was not possible because the investigation was ongoing. Investigation into the sexual assault 14.  On 29 December 2014 an investigation into voluntary sexual relations with a person under the age of 16 was initiated. However, it was suspended on 25 February 2015 until possible perpetrators could be identified. The criminal investigation file submitted by the Government contained copies of documents from the case-file material relating to the criminal investigation into suspected incitement to suicide (see paragraphs 5-8 above). Additionally, the investigating authorities had obtained information from A.’s social media account. 15.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision to suspend the investigation. 16.  The applicant complained of a violation of her rights under Articles 2, 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONSObjections concerning abuse of the right of application and the applicant’s lawyer’s lack of authority to represent her 17.  The Government submitted that the application should be dismissed as abusive and unsubstantiated because the applicant had failed to raise meritorious complaints, had deliberately distorted facts and had misled the Court. In their further submissions of 20 February 2023, they requested that the application be struck out of the Court’s list of cases because the applicant’s legal representative arguably did not have authority to continue representing her before the Court, as the contract provided by him covered legal services only in respect of lodging an application with it. 18.  Having regard to the statements made by the applicant in the present case and to the interpretation of facts presented by her and her representative, the Court does not consider that those statements amount to an abuse of the right of petition, as they were clearly not “offensive”, “defamatory” or knowingly based on untrue facts (see Popov v. Moldova, no. 74153/01, § 49, 18 January 2005). Accordingly, this objection is dismissed. 19.  The Government have not provided any valid reason for the Court to assume that the applicant has withdrawn the initial powers granted to her lawyer or that she has lost interest in the proceedings and no longer intends to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Accordingly, this objection is also dismissed. Objection concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies 20.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies, as she had failed to substantiate her appeal against the discontinuation of the criminal investigation into A.’s death (see paragraphs 11-12 above) and to appeal against the prosecutor’s decision to suspend the criminal investigation into the sexual assault (see paragraph 15 above). 21.  The Court finds the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies inextricably linked to the merits of the complaints. It therefore considers that it should be joined and examined together with each complaint (see Timus and Tarus v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 70077/11, § 41, 15 October 2013). Conclusions 22.  The Court notes that this application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION 23.  The applicant complained that the investigation into A.’s death had failed to look into possible causes other than suicide and had not established important factual elements, such as how A. had been able to jump from the building, how her belt had been cut, and who had had sexual relations with her shortly before her death. The applicant also complained that she had not been sufficiently involved in the investigation. 24.  The Government disagreed, noting that the investigation had been initiated promptly, had been completed and had involved the applicant at all relevant stages. Although the applicant could not have been provided with a copy of the entire case file, her requests for access had repeatedly been granted. 25.  The Court notes that there is an undisputed obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to investigate the suspicious circumstances of A.’s death (see Lari v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 37847/13, §§ 34-40, 15 September 2015). The general principles concerning the specific requirements of the duty to investigate have been summarised in Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey ([GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015). 26.  Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the investigation was marked by various shortcomings, which undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the circumstances of A.’s death and who, if anyone, was responsible. 27.  In particular, the authorities failed to investigate the circumstances in which A. had had sexual relations and consumed alcohol shortly before her death. The decision of 31 December 2014 did not refer to any evidence in that regard and did not factor those circumstances into the final assessment that no criminal offence had been committed in relation to A.’s death (see paragraph 9 above). Despite the number of witnesses interviewed, there was no genuine attempt by the investigating authorities to carry out a thorough investigation into how A. had been able to jump from the building with her trousers lowered to her knees, whether she had been alone at the time of the events, and when she had handwritten and given V.I. her “farewell” letter (see, mutatis mutandis, Lyubov Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 75726/01, §§ 76-80, 25 November 2010, and Yuriy Slyusar v. Ukraine, no. 39797/05, §§ 84-88, 17 January 2013). 28.  The applicant repeatedly suggested to the investigators that they look into the elements listed above, but to no avail. 29.  In the Court’s opinion, all the considerations noted above suggest that the national authorities did not carry out the investigative steps available to them, did not take all reasonable measures to shed light on the facts of the present case and did not undertake a full and careful analysis of the evidence before them. Those omissions appear sufficiently serious for the Court to consider that the investigation was not effective for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention. 30.  The Court notes that although the applicant’s appeals stated her complaints in a very general manner, they nevertheless contained the essence of her complaints before the Court concerning the ineffective investigation into A.’s death and sexual assault (see paragraphs 10-12 above). The Court concludes that the domestic authorities (both the prosecutors and the courts) were afforded the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violations of the Convention and that a conclusion to the contrary would be excessively formalistic (see Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, §§ 84‑89, 9 July 2015). 31.  The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection of non‑exhaustion and finds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention. Alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention 32.  The applicant complained that the investigation into A.’s sexual assault had been deficient because it had been initiated one year after the event in question and had been purely formal in nature, as no genuine investigative measures had been carried out and the case file had contained only copies of documents from the case file of the investigation into suspected incitement to suicide. The applicant also complained that she had never been afforded access to the case file. 33.  The Government disagreed, noting that: certain elements of the case had been established even before the formal initiation of the investigation on 29 December 2014; no signs of forced sexual intercourse had been identified; and no possible perpetrator had been identified given that the samples of saliva and blood collected during the investigation had not matched the semen found in A.’s body. Moreover, the applicant had never appealed against the decision to suspend the investigation. 34.  The Court refers to the general principles summarised in X and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 184-90, 2 February 2021), in A.J. and L.E. v. Spain (nos. 40312/23 and 40388/23, §§ 78-86, 23 October 2025) and those listed in paragraph 25 above. 35.  The criminal investigation into the sexual assault was indeed initiated in December 2014, more than a year after A.’s death, even though the information about the presence of semen in her body had been available shortly after the event. The only investigative measure carried out was the gathering of information from A.’s social media account (see paragraph 14 above). The other material in the case file, as submitted by the Government, comprised copies of documents from the case file of the criminal investigation into suspected incitement to suicide (see paragraph 14 above). 36.  From the previous investigation it was known that V.I. and I.C. were possible matches for the semen found in A.’s body (see paragraph 8 above), but there was no subsequent attempt to interview them again about that matter. There was also no attempt to investigate where A. had acquired alcohol on that day and whether she had been alone. The investigation was based from the outset on the assumption that the sexual relations had been voluntary (in the light of the absence of signs of self-defence on A.’s body), and thus never looked into whether A. had been capable of expressing consent or had in fact been raped. 37.  The wording of the decision of 25 February 2015 to suspend the investigation into the sexual assault was almost a verbatim copy of the decision of 31 December 2014 to discontinue the investigation into suspected incitement to suicide. It did not refer to or assess the forensic evidence (the blood and saliva samples) collected from V.I. and I.C. 38.  Lastly, although the investigation had been suspended, the Government failed to submit any evidence of further efforts carried out by the domestic authorities to search for possible perpetrators and to report on the matter every six months, as required under Article 287/2 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 39.  Having concluded above that the investigation into the sexual assault was ineffective on account of its lack of thoroughness, promptness and any further attempts to establish the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the applicant was no longer required to appeal against the prosecutor’s decision to suspend the investigation in order to exhaust domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Vovk and Bogdanov v. Russia, no. 15613/10, § 75, 11 February 2020). Even so, the Court notes that the essence of the applicant’s complaints were raised in her appeals during the first set of proceedings (see paragraph 30 above). 40.  The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection of non‑exhaustion and finds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention. OTHER COMPLAINTS 41.  The applicant also complained under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints separately. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 42.  The applicant claimed 80,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 7,376 in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. Her representative submitted a contract signed only by himself and a detailed description of the services provided. 43.  The Government submitted that the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage was excessive and inconsistent with the Court’s awards in similar cases, and that the claim for costs and expenses was unsubstantiated and excessive. 44.  The Court, ruling on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 15,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 45.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,500 covering the costs incurred before the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Joins to the merits the Government’s preliminary objection as to the non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies and dismisses it; Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Moldovan lei at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)  EUR 15,600 (fifteen thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)  EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 February 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Martina Keller María Elósegui  Deputy Registrar President