CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt }   Communicated on 1 September 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 55364/09 Fiodor NEICOVCEN and Fiodor MOSCOGLO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 3 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Feodor Neicovcen and Mr Fiodor Moscoglo, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1973 and 1983 respectively and were detained in Cahul at the time when the application was lodged. They are represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Beruceaşvili and Mr A. Maslov, lawyers practising in Chișinău. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 6 May 2008 the applicants were arrested. They were accused of acting as heads of a criminal organisation which had committed in 2007 and 2008 multiple thefts, robberies and extortions. The first applicant was also charged with illegally carrying firearms and with involving minors in criminal activities. On 8 May 2008 the Buiucani District Court issued a detention order for thirty days in respect of both applicants. The applicants’ detention was extended repeatedly every thirty days until 1 October 2008, when the case was committed for trial; thereafter, their detention was extended every ninety days. On 30 June 2009 the prosecutor requested the extension of their detention for another ninety days. The applicants argued that the maximum duration of their detention under Article 186 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was six months and that under Article 25 (4) of the Constitution it was twelve months; both time-limits had already expired. On 2 July 2009 the Cahul Court of Appeal issued a detention order for ninety days. The court found that the time-limits prescribed by Article   186   (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had indeed expired but that Article 186 (9) allowed for exceptional extensions. The decision noted that the first applicant had been convicted by a first-instance court in another case. The applicants appealed, arguing, inter alia , that under Article 25 (4) of the Constitution a person could be held in detention pending trial for no longer than twelve months. On 7 August 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed their appeals as ill-founded. The court noted that Article 186 (9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for repeated extensions of detention beyond the twelve ‑ month time-limit prescribed under Article 186 (8). On 5 October 2009 the Cahul Court of Appeal extended the applicants’ detention for another seventy days relying on the same reasons as before. The court did not refer to the first applicant serving a prison sentence. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice. On 24 December 2009 the Cahul Court of Appeal found the applicants guilty on several charges, sentenced the first applicant to twelve years of imprisonment and the second applicant to nine years of imprisonment. The court included in the term of the second applicant the unserved term of imprisonment under a 2006 sentence suspended on probation. The court did not cite any previous convictions in respect of the first applicant. On 25 March 2011 the Supreme Court of Justice reviewed the applicants’ convictions and sentences: the first applicant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment, the second applicant was sentenced to six   years of imprisonment. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their detention beyond the time-limit of twelve months prescribed by Article   25   (4) of the Constitution was unlawful. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the applicants deprived of their liberty, in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty lawful for the purposes of Article 25 of the Constitution after the expiration of twelve   months (see Savca v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 17963/08, §§   43 ‑ 53, 15   March 2016)?