CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 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 13 June 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15989/11 Lilian MITITELU and Iulian ANTONOVICI against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 28 February 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were acquitted of murder charges at first instance, but convicted on appeal without there being a full-fledged hearing of the case and without a direct examination of the evidence and witness statements by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law. The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them were not fair because the Court of Appeal convicted them without conducting a proper hearing and because they did not have the possibility to put questions to the main accusation witness. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ( Popovici v. Moldova , nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, 27 November 2007, and Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)?