{"id":4909,"date":"2015-01-30T10:24:43","date_gmt":"2015-01-30T08:24:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/crjm.org\/?p=4909"},"modified":"2020-05-19T11:27:20","modified_gmt":"2020-05-19T08:27:20","slug":"crjm-a-analizat-activitatea-ctedo-in-2014","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/crjm-a-analizat-activitatea-ctedo-in-2014\/","title":{"rendered":"CRJM a analizat activitatea Cur\u021bii Europene a Drepturilor Omului \u00een anul 2014"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Urm\u00e2nd tradi\u021bia din anii preceden\u021bi, Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM) a <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/CRJM-Nota-Analitica-CtEDO-in-2014.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">analizat activitatea Cur\u021bii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (CtEDO) \u00een anul 2014 \u00een ceea ce prive\u0219te Republica Moldova<\/a>. Acest document a fost elaborat pentru a spori nivelul de informare a societ\u0103\u0163ii, \u00een general, precum \u0219i a juri\u015ftilor, \u00een special, despre activitatea CEDO. Anterior, CRJM a analizat activitatea CtEDO \u0219i pentru anii<strong>\u00a0<\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/01\/Raport.activ_.ctedo_.2010.28.01.20111.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>2010<\/b><\/a>,<strong>\u00a0<\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/01\/Raport.activ_.ctedo_.2011.fin_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>2011<\/b><\/a>,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/02\/Raport.activ_.ctedo_.2012.20.02.2013-11.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>2012<\/b><\/a> \u0219i <a href=\"http:\/\/old2.old.crjm.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Hot-CtEDO-2013.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><b>2013<\/b><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00cen anul 2014, CtEDO a \u00eenregistrat 1,105 de cereri \u00eendreptate \u00eempotriva Moldovei, ceea ce este cu 18,5% mai pu\u021bin dec\u00e2t \u00een anul 2013. Sc\u0103derea num\u0103rului de cereri depuse \u00eempotriva Republicii Moldova ar putea fi explicat\u0103 prin reducerea num\u0103rului general de cereri la CtEDO \u00een anul 2014 (cu 15%), precum \u0219i prin faptul c\u0103 \u00een anii 2013-2014 CtEDO a respins peste 4,000 de cereri moldovene\u0219ti, ceea ce putea descuraja avoca\u021bii care au primit refuzuri s\u0103 sesizeze din nou CtEDO. Raportat la popula\u0163ia \u0163\u0103rii, num\u0103rul cererilor depuse la CtEDO \u00eempotriva Moldovei este foarte mare. La acest capitol, \u00een anul 2014, Republica Moldova se afla pe locul 4 din cele 47 de \u0163\u0103ri membre ale Consiliului Europei.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Din cele 1,366 de cereri moldovene\u015fti examinate \u00een anul 2014, 1,341 (98.2%) au fost declarate inadmisibile sau scoase de pe rol. Pe marginea a 25 de cereri (1.8%) au fost pronun\u0163ate hot\u0103r\u00e2ri. La 31 decembrie 2014, 1,159 de cereri moldovene\u0219ti \u201ea\u0219teptau\u201d s\u0103 fie examinate de CtEDO.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">P\u00e2n\u0103 la 31 decembrie 2014, CtEDO a pronun\u0163at 297 de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri \u00een cauzele moldovene\u015fti, dintre care 24 &#8211; \u00een 2014. Dup\u0103 num\u0103rul de hot\u0103r\u00e2ri, Moldova devanseaz\u0103 Germania, Spania, Olanda sau Portugalia, \u0163\u0103ri care au aderat la Conven\u0163ia European\u0103 pentru Drepturile Omului cu mult timp \u00eenaintea Moldovei \u015fi care au o popula\u0163ie cu mult mai mare dec\u00e2t cea a Moldovei. \u00cen 98.5% din hot\u0103r\u00e2rile moldovene\u0219ti \u00een care a fost examinat irevocabil fondul, CtEDO a constatat cel pu\u021bin o violare. Cele mai multe viol\u0103ri vizeaz\u0103 neexecutarea hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor judec\u0103tore\u015fti na\u0163ionale (\u00een principal, datorit\u0103 situa\u021biilor care au avut loc p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een anul 2007); anchetarea inadecvat\u0103 a maltrat\u0103rilor; deten\u0163ia \u00een condi\u0163ii proaste; casarea neregulamentar\u0103 a hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor judec\u0103tore\u015fti irevocabile; \u0219i maltratarea sau recurgerea la for\u0163a excesiv\u0103 de c\u0103tre exponen\u0163ii statului.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">\u00cen temeiul hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor pronun\u0163ate p\u00e2n\u0103 la 31 decembrie 2014, Republica Moldova a fost obligat\u0103 s\u0103 pl\u0103teasc\u0103 peste EUR 14,100,000, dintre care EUR 225,271 &#8211; \u00een baza celor 24 hot\u0103r\u00e2ri pronun\u0163ate \u00een anul 2014. Alte peste EUR 3,300,000 au fost acordate \u00een temeiul reglement\u0103rilor amiabile sau declara\u0163iilor unilaterale formulate de Guvern.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Acest document mai analizeaz\u0103 datele statistice privind activitatea CtEDO \u00een privin\u021ba tuturor statelor. Analiza con\u021bine \u0219i o sintez\u0103 a hot\u0103r\u00e2rilor \u0219i deciziilor CtEDO din anul 2014 privind Republica Moldova.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Urm\u00e2nd tradi\u021bia din anii preceden\u021bi, Centrul de Resurse Juridice din Moldova (CRJM) a analizat activitatea Cur\u021bii Europene a Drepturilor Omului (CtEDO) \u00een anul 2014 \u00een ceea ce prive\u0219te Republica Moldova. Acest document a fost elaborat pentru a spori nivelul de informare a societ\u0103\u0163ii, \u00een general, precum \u0219i a juri\u015ftilor, \u00een special, despre activitatea CEDO. Anterior, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3162,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4909"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4909"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4909\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19317,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4909\/revisions\/19317"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3162"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/old.crjm.org\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}