{"id":3168,"date":"2014-01-31T11:36:01","date_gmt":"2014-01-31T11:36:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/crjm.artsintez.md\/?p=3168"},"modified":"2017-05-13T19:57:18","modified_gmt":"2017-05-13T16:57:18","slug":"in-2013-moldova-a-pierdut-la-cedo-19-dosare-sursa-ziarul-de-garda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/in-2013-moldova-a-pierdut-la-cedo-19-dosare-sursa-ziarul-de-garda\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00cen 2013, Moldova a pierdut la CEDO 19 dosare"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>\u00cen 2013, Moldova a pierdut la CEDO 19 dosare. \u00cen 18 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri emise, Curtea a constatat cel pu\u0163in o \u00eenc\u0103lcare a Conven\u0163iei Drepturilor Omului. Dintre cele 250 de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri \u00een care a fost examinat irevocabil fondul, doar \u00een 4 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri (1,6%) CtEDO a constatat c\u0103 R. Moldova nu a violat CEDO.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>\u00cen anul trecut, Curtea European\u0103 a Drepturilor Omului (CtEDO) a \u00eenregistrat 1,356 de cereri \u00eendreptate \u00eempotriva Moldovei, ceea ce reprezint\u0103 cel mai mare num\u0103r de cereri moldovene\u015fti primit vreodat\u0103 de CtEDO \u00eentr-un an. Aceasta este cu 45,1% mai mult dec\u00e2t \u00een anul 2012. Cre\u015fterea at\u00e2t de mare a num\u0103rului de cereri depuse poate fi explicat\u0103, \u00een principal, prin ne\u00eencrederea \u00een sistemul judec\u0103toresc din R. Moldova.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Printre cele mai multe condamn\u0103ri, R. Moldova le are la capitolul tratamente inumane sau degradante \u2014 8 cazuri, lipsa unei anchete eficiente \u2014 8 cazuri \u015fi dreptul la un proces echitabil \u2014 5 cazuri. Totodat\u0103, Curtea European\u0103 a Drepturilor Omului a emis 3 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri care prev\u0103d \u00eenc\u0103lcarea dreptului la via\u0163a privat\u0103 \u015fi familie.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>\u00cen cele 19 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri pronun\u0163ate \u00een 2013, CtEDO a constatat 32 de viol\u0103ri ale CEDO. 15 dintre aceste viol\u0103ri (47%) se refer\u0103 la un singur articol \u2014 art. 3 CEDO (interzicerea torturii). Urmeaz\u0103 a fi, de asemenea, remarcat faptul c\u0103 \u00een anul 2013 CtEDO a condamnat de 3 ori Moldova pentru violen\u0163\u0103 domestic\u0103, se arat\u0103 \u00eentr-o sintez\u0103 a activit\u0103\u0163ii CtEDO pentru anul 2013, elaborat\u0103 de Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>\u00cen temeiul celor 273 de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri CtEDO pronun\u0163ate p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een 2013, R. Moldova a fost obligat\u0103 s\u0103 pl\u0103teasc\u0103 peste EUR 13,900,000, dintre care EUR 325,600 \u2014 \u00een baza celor 19 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri pronun\u0163ate \u00een 2013. Alte circa EUR 3,100,000 au fost pl\u0103tite \u00een temeiul reglement\u0103rilor amiabile sau declara\u0163iilor unilaterale formulate de Guvern.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Din 1998 p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een 2013, CtEDO a \u00eenregistrat 9,700 de cereri \u00eendreptate \u00eempotriva Moldovei. La 1 ianuarie 2014, 1,442 dintre acestea \u00eenc\u0103 a\u015fteptau s\u0103 fie examinate. Spre deosebire de anii preceden\u0163i, \u00een ceea ce prive\u015fte num\u0103rul cererilor pendinte, Moldova nu se mai afl\u0103 printre primele 10 \u0163\u0103ri (\u00een anul 2012, Moldova se afla pe locul 9, cu 3,256 de cereri pendinte).<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Printre \u0163\u0103rile cu coeficientul cel mai mare al hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor emise de CEDO \u00een 2013, se num\u0103r\u0103 Rusia, Italia, Ucraina, Serbia \u015fi Turcia, urmate de Rom\u00e2nia, Marea Britanie, Georgia, Bulgaria \u015fi Slovenia.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00cen 2013, Moldova a pierdut la CEDO 19 dosare. \u00cen 18 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri emise, Curtea a constatat cel pu\u0163in o \u00eenc\u0103lcare a Conven\u0163iei Drepturilor Omului. Dintre cele 250 de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri \u00een care a fost examinat irevocabil fondul, doar \u00een 4 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri (1,6%) CtEDO a constatat c\u0103 R. Moldova nu a violat CEDO. \u00cen anul trecut, Curtea [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[43],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3168"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3168"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3168\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11763,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3168\/revisions\/11763"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}