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. 25092/15 Martin LITSCHAUER against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 12 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention pending trial for several months on charges of operating a prostitution business . The applicant, an Austrian national, was accused of running an erotic web-cam business in Moldova. He alleges that his detention was not lawful under domestic law, since neither the criminal law in force nor the case-law of the domestic courts had previously interpreted the practicing of erotic web-cam shows/interactions as prostitution. He also alleges that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and that it was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom , 23 September 1998, §   54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VII)?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence (see Muşuc v.   Moldova , no. 42440/06, §§ 29-34, 6 November 2007)?   3.     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))?