CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 avril 2017

.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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 26 April 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 3077/10 Vadim CIORNEA against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 14 January 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention for twenty-three and seventeen days in pre-trial detention and under house arrest, respectively, based on reasons which, according to the applicant, were general and stereotyped. The applicant also submits that he has not been given access to the materials on the basis of which his detention was ordered and that the courts refused to hear a witness, whose testimony was central for ordering the detention. After his acquittal, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the State claiming compensation for the breach of his Article 5 rights. The Supreme Court of Justice found that his detention had been unlawful and in breach of Article 5 of the Convention and awarded him some 535 Euros for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant complains that the amount was not sufficient for him to lose his victim status under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Bearing in mind the decisions of the domestic courts and the award of compensation granted to the applicant, can he still claim to be a victim of a breach of Article 5 of the Convention?   2.     If so, has there been a breach of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention in the present case?