CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 23 October 2013   THIRD SECTION Application no. 65311/09 Oleg MORARI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 December 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Oleg Morari, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Chişinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 April 2008 the applicant was accused of forging documents. According to the indictment order, the applicant contacted B.A., who had placed an advertisement in a newspaper seeking help with a view to obtaining a Romanian identity card. He later received EUR 1,500 from that person. The money was transmitted to I.Z. who produced a forged document and later the applicant gave it to B.A. During the criminal proceedings the applicant did not contest having received money from B.A. and having transmitted him a Romanian identity card in exchange for it. However, he argued that it was he who had been contacted by B.A.. He also argued that B.A. had acted as an agent provocateur, that he had not known that the identity card given to B.A. in exchange for money was forged. He also argued that it had been the first time that he had done something like that and that he would not have done it had B.A. not provoked him. The applicant requested that B.A. be heard in person in the proceedings so that he could ask him questions and prove that he had been provoked. However, this request was dismissed on the ground that the law gave the right to undercover police agents not to take part in criminal proceedings and not to make statements. On 17 December 2008 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a criminal fine of some EUR 200. That decision was upheld by the Chisinau Court of Appeal on 4 March 2009 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 8 July 2009. In their decisions, the domestic courts did not contest the fact that B.A. had acted as an agent provocateur, however, they considered that that was not a problem since the applicant had responded to an advertisement placed by B.A. in a newspaper and therefore he had been the first to contact the agent provocateur. The courts also dismissed the applicant’s request to hear B.A. in the proceedings. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he has been a victim of entrapment and that he was prevented during the proceedings to prove that by not being allowed to put questions to accusation witnesses. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant the victim of “entrapment” and did the domestic courts properly deal with his claim in that respect (see, for instance, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, ECHR 2008)?