CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 février 2019

.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 25 February 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 57575/14 Mihail DAN against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 11 August 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case is a follow-up to Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011. In that case the Court found a breach of Article 6 on account of the fact that the Court of Appeal had quashed a judgment acquitting the applicant of bribe ‑ taking charges after giving weight to seven witness statements, statements which the first instance considered contradictory and unreliable. The Court of Appeal deemed those witnesses to be reliable without re ‑ hearing them in person but merely on the basis of the transcripts of their depositions. After the Court adopted its judgment in 2011, the proceedings were re ‑ opened before the Court of Appeal. The latter heard three of the initial seven witnesses. All of them were police officers involved in the apprehension of the applicant. Two of them appeared to have better recollection of the events of 2004 than they had during the proceedings before the first instance court in 2006, one of them even presenting a different account of the facts. Nonetheless, the applicant was found guilty as charged. The applicant complains that the proceedings against him were not fair in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Dan v. Moldova , no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011)?