CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 12 July 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 37725/15 Tudor CEAICOVSCHI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 3 August 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s remand in custody for some five months on charges of corruption. The applicant alleges that the authorities have failed to provide him with appropriate medical care which he needed urgently. He also alleges that his detention was contrary to Article 5 of the Convention because the court judgments ordering and extending it were not sufficiently reasoned and did not rely on relevant and sufficient reasons to place him in detention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant receive appropriate medical care throughout his detention, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Sarban v.   Moldova , no. 3456/05, §§ 68-91, 4 October 2005)?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention based on relevant and sufficient reasons, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v.   the   Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 115-23, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?