CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .sA364133D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:46.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8616E537 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:46.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8D893B61 { width:152.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56012/14 Vitalie BURLACU against the Republic of Moldova   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   January 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Egidijus Kūris, President,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   56012/14) 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 25   July 2014 by a Moldovan national, Mr Vitalie Burlacu, (“the applicant”), who was born in 1979 and lives in Chișinău and who was represented before the Court by Mr   V. Țurcan, a lawyer practising in Chișinău; the decision to give notice of the application to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s detention on remand pending trial between 7 March 2014 and 11 February 2015 followed by his house arrest between 11 February and 20 March 2015. The deprivation of liberty was prolonged each month and the main reason for prolonging it was the risk of the applicant’s absconding. After his release on 20 March 2015 the applicant failed to appear before the court when summoned. A search warrant was issued in his name and eventually he was convicted in absentia . THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the ordering and the prolongation of his deprivation of liberty was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. According to him, the reasons given by the courts were stereotyped. The Government disagreed and argued that the courts’ fear of the applicant’s absconding was justified in the circumstances of the case. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention regarding, in particular, the need for relevant and sufficient reasons for depriving someone of his or her liberty (see, among others, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   84 ‑ 91, 5   July 2016). In the present case, when ordering and prolonging the applicant’s detention, the domestic courts considered that, in view of the circumstances of the case, he might abscond. Having examined the materials of the case ‑ file, the Court does not find the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts to be insufficient or irrelevant. In any event, the Court cannot but notice that the domestic courts’ fear about the risk of the applicant’s absconding appeared to have been well justified, since after his release he indeed absconded. It follows that the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §   4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 February 2022.     Hasan Bakırcı   Egidijus Kūris   Deputy Registrar   President