CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 16 May 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 66418/14 Alexei GOLOVCHENKO against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 26 September 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged entrapment in committing a criminal offence, as well as reliance by the courts on a witness testimony of the alleged “ agent provocateur ” without hearing him in person. It raises issues under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, was the applicant the victim of entrapment and did the domestic courts properly examine his arguments in this respect (see, for instance, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 49-74, ECHR 2008)?   2.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3(b), notably as a result of the use by the courts of testimony obtained from the alleged “ agent provocateur ” without hearing him in person (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-170, ECHR 2015)?