CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2018

.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 17 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 74444/11 Andrei NĂSTASE against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 10 November 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s final conviction in criminal proceedings in his absence while he was in the Russian Federation awaiting extradition to Moldova at the request of the Moldovan authorities. No retrial took place upon the applicant’s return to the Republic of Moldova. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing within the meaning of that article because the proceedings took place in his absence. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s trial in absentia contrary to that provision (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82, ECHR 2006 ‑ II)?