{"id":8666,"date":"2017-01-27T10:26:52","date_gmt":"2017-01-27T08:26:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/crjm.org\/?p=8666"},"modified":"2019-03-07T17:43:35","modified_gmt":"2019-03-07T15:43:35","slug":"radiografia-republicii-moldova-la-ctedo-in-2016-regres-sau-evolutie-pozitiva","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/radiografia-republicii-moldova-la-ctedo-in-2016-regres-sau-evolutie-pozitiva\/","title":{"rendered":"The Republic of Moldova to ECtHR in 2016 \u2013 regression or positive evolution?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00cen scopul sporirii nivelului de informare al societ\u0103\u0163ii despre activitatea Cur\u021bii Europene a Drepturilor Omului\u00a0(CtEDO), Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova a analizat activitatea CtEDO pentru anul 2016. Analiza\u00a0a fost efectuat\u0103 \u00een baza <a href=\"http:\/\/echr.coe.int\/Documents\/Annual_report_2016_ENG.pdf\">Raportului de activitate al CtEDO pentru anul 2016<\/a> \u015fi a studierii jurispruden\u0163ei\u00a0CtEDO \u00een cauzele moldovene\u015fti.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Principalele constat\u0103ri ale anului sunt urm\u0103toarele:<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>\u00een anul 2016, CtEDO a \u00eenregistrat 839 de cereri \u00eendreptate \u00eempotriva Moldovei, cu 17% mai pu\u021bin dec\u00e2t \u00een anul 2015. Se pare c\u0103 sc\u0103derea este determinat\u0103, \u00een principal, de descre\u015fterea popularit\u0103\u0163ii CtEDO, dup\u0103 ce \u00een anii 2011-2016 CtEDO a respins f\u0103r\u0103 o motivare explicit\u0103 circa 8,500 de cereri moldovene\u0219ti. Aceasta a avut un efect descurajant asupra avoca\u0163ilor;<\/li>\n<li>\u00een pofida reducerii \u00een 2016, num\u0103rul cererilor depuse la CtEDO \u00eempotriva Moldovei, raportat la popula\u0163ia \u0163\u0103rii, este foarte mare. La acest capitol, \u00een 2016, Moldova se afla pe locul 7 din cele 47 de \u0163\u0103ri membre ale Consiliului Europei. \u00cen 2016, moldovenii s-au adresat la CtEDO de 4 ori mai des dec\u00e2t media european\u0103;<\/li>\n<li>la 31 decembrie 2016, 1,283 de cereri moldovene\u015fti \u00eenc\u0103 a\u015fteptau s\u0103 fie examinate. 93.4% dintre acestea au \u015fanse mari de succes. Acest num\u0103r este mai mare dec\u00e2t num\u0103rul total de cereri \u00een baz\u0103 c\u0103rora Moldova a fost condamnat\u0103 \u00een ultimii 20 de ani;<\/li>\n<li>P\u00e2n\u0103 la 31 decembrie 2016, CtEDO a pronun\u0163at 339 de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri \u00een cauzele moldovene\u015fti, dintre care 23 \u00een anul 2016. La acest capitol, Moldova devanseaz\u0103 cu mult Germania, Spania sau Olanda, \u0163\u0103ri care au aderat la Conven\u0163ia European\u0103 pentru Drepturile Omului (CEDO) cu mult timp \u00eenaintea Moldovei \u015fi au o popula\u0163ie cu mult mai mare dec\u00e2t cea a Moldovei;<\/li>\n<li>doar \u00een 1.9% din hot\u0103r\u00e2ri, CtEDO a constatat c\u0103 Republica Moldova nu a violat CEDO;<\/li>\n<li>cele mai frecvente tipuri de viol\u0103ri constatate de CtEDO \u00een cauzele moldovene\u015fti sunt neexecutarea hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor judec\u0103tore\u015fti (hot\u0103r\u00e2ri mai vechi); anchetarea inadecvat\u0103 a maltrat\u0103rilor \u015fi deceselor; deten\u0163ia \u00een condi\u0163ii proaste; casarea neregulamentar\u0103 a hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor judec\u0103tore\u015fti irevocabile; precum \u015fi maltratarea sau recurgerea la for\u0163a excesiv\u0103 de c\u0103tre exponen\u0163ii statului;<\/li>\n<li>\u00een baza tuturor hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor \u015fi deciziilor pronun\u0163ate p\u00e2n\u0103 la 31 decembrie 2016, Republica Moldova a fost obligat\u0103 s\u0103 pl\u0103teasc\u0103 peste EUR 16,200,000 (EUR 236,807 \u00een 2016). Aceasta este mai mult dec\u00e2t \u00eentregul buget al instan\u0163elor judec\u0103tore\u015fti pentru anul 2015.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Anterior, CRJM a efectuat analize similare \u0219i pentru anii <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/01\/Raport.activ_.ctedo_.2010.28.01.20111.pdf\">2010<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/raport.activ_.ctedo_.2011.fin_1.pdf\">2011<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Raport.activ_.ctedo_.2012.20.02.2013-11.pdf\">2012<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Hot-CtEDO-2013.pdf\">2013<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/05-Nota-Analitica-Ianuarie-2015.pdf\">2014<\/a> \u015fi<a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/05-Nota-Analitica-Ianuarie-2015.pdf\"> 2015<\/a>, iar sinteza datelor privind activitatea Cur\u021bii Europene a Drepturilor Omului<a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/NA-CRJM-CtEDO-2016-ro_Rev.03.pdf\"> \u00een anul 2016 poate fi vizualizat\u0103 aici.<\/a><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Datele statistice \u0219i concluziile anului au fost prezentate \u00a0\u00een cadrul unei conferin\u021be de pres\u0103, de c\u0103tre Vladislav GRIBINCEA, pre\u0219edintele CRJM \u0219i Alexandru POSTICA, director de programe Promo-LEX.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"\/\/www.privesc.eu\/widget\/live\/73124\" width=\"480\" height=\"270\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00cen scopul sporirii nivelului de informare al societ\u0103\u0163ii despre activitatea Cur\u021bii Europene a Drepturilor Omului\u00a0(CtEDO), Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova a analizat activitatea CtEDO pentru anul 2016. Analiza\u00a0a fost efectuat\u0103 \u00een baza Raportului de activitate al CtEDO pentru anul 2016 \u015fi a studierii jurispruden\u0163ei\u00a0CtEDO \u00een cauzele moldovene\u015fti. Principalele constat\u0103ri ale anului sunt urm\u0103toarele: \u00een [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":8667,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8666"}],"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=8666"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8666\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17366,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8666\/revisions\/17366"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}